Section 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/levelplanforchurOObrow_0 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR  AND  PUBLISHER. 
“The  Church  for  Americans,”  $1.25;  Nineteenth 


Edition. 

“ The  Crucial  Race  Question,”  $1.00;  Second  Edition. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN 


FOR 

CHURCH  UNION 


WILLIAM  MONTGOMERY  BROWN 
D.  D.  (Ken.,  Un.  So.) 

BISHOP  OF  ARKANSAS 


With  an  Introduction  on  “The  Origin  and 
Development  of  the  Historic  Episcopate” 
^ the  REV.  GEORGE  WILLIAMSON 
SMITH,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Sometime 
President  of  Trinity  College 

And  with  an  Appendix  on  “The  Chief 
Barrier  to  Christian  Unity”  by  “AN- 
GLICAN PRESBYTER.”  .... 


NEW  YORK 
THOMAS  WHITTAKER 
1910 


Copyright,  1910, 


THE 


BY 

WILLIAM  MONTGOMERY  BROWN. 


WERNER  COMPANY 
AKRON,  OHIO 


This  Volume  is  Reverently  Dedicated 
TO  THE  MEMORY  OF 

IGNATIUS  THEOPHORUS 

AND 

WILLIAM  AUGUSTUS  MUHLENBERG 

THE  GREAT  SAINTS  OF  THE 

Syrian  and  Anglo-American  Churches 

WHO 

About  A.  D.  116  and  In  A.  D.  1 853 

APPEALED  FOR  CHRISTIAN  UNITY 


on  the  only  basis  possible 

A Uniform  Christian  Ministry, 


PRAYER  FOR  THE  UNITY  OF  GOD’S 
PEOPLE. 


O GOD,  THE  FATHER  OF  OUR  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST, 
OUR  ONLY  SAVIOUR,  THE  PRINCE  OF  PEACE  GIVE  US 
GRACE  SERIOUSLY  TO  LAY  TO  HEART  THE  GREAT  DAN- 
GERS WE  ARE  IN  BY  OUR  UNHAPPY  DIVISIONS.  TAKE 
AWAY  ALL  HATRED  AND  PREJUDICE,  AND  WHATSO- 
EVER ELSE  MAY  HINDER  US  FROM  GODLY  UNION  AND 
CONCORD;  THAT  AS  THERE  IS  BUT  ONE  BODY  AND  ONE 
SPIRIT,  AND  ONE  HOPE  OF  OUR  CALLING,  ONE  LORD, 
ONE  FAITH,  ONE  BAPTISM,  ONE  GOD  AND  FATHER  OF 
US  ALL,  SO  WE  MAY  BE  ALL  OF  ONE  HEART  AND  OF 
ONE  SOUL,  UNITED  IN  ONE  HOLY  BOND  OF  TRUTH  AND 
PEACE,  OF  FAITH  AND  CHARITY,  AND  MAY  WITH  ONE 
MIND  AND  ONE  MOUTH  GLORIFY  THEE;  THROUGH 
JESUS  CHRIST  OUR  LORD.  AMEN, 


PREFACE. 


WITHIN  each  of  the  national  Churches  which 
compose  the  Anglican  Communion  there  is  a 
large  and  influential  school  which  makes  much 
of  what  is  characterized  as  the  prophetic  office  of  the 
Christian  priesthood,  and  would  close  the  doors  of  pulpits 
against  all  who  have  not  received  ordination  to  the  Min- 
istry by  a representative  of  the  Historic  Episcopate. 

This  school,  which  contains  many  of  the  most  saintly, 
earnest  and  learned  among  our  Ministers  and  People,  is, 
I believe,  quite  right  in  the  importance  which  it  attaches 
to  the  prophetic  office.  The  world  is  to  be  saved  very 
largely  by  “ the  foolishness  of  preaching;”  not  prosaic 
teaching,  but  prophetic  preaching. 

I am  in  complete  sympathy  with  this  school  in  its 
contention  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  existence  and  impor- 
tance of  the  prophetic  mission.  Indeed,  I am  inclined  to 
go  beyond  it,  by  insisting  that  no  one,  not  even  a 
Greek,  Roman  or  Anglican  Bishop,  should  remain  in 


X 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


the  Christian  ministry  unless  he  feels  in  his  heart  that  he 
has  for  the  world  at  least  some  one  message,  especially  his 
own;  so  that,  like  St.  Paul,  he  can  say  of  it,  “my 
gospel;’’  and  “woe  is  me  if  I preach  not  this  gospel.’’ 

The  idea  that  the  Christian  faith  was  once  for  all 
delivered  to  the  Saints  in  a crystallized  form,  and  that 
it  is  the  office  of  a Minister  of  the  Gospel  simply  to  propa- 
gate it,  by  teaching  it  as  it  has  been  formulated  by  an 
ecumenical  council,  or  interpreted  in  the  writings  of 
some  ancient  Father  or  Doctor  does  not  commend  itself 
to  me.  A Christian  minister  does  not  fulfill  his  duty  by 
a restatement  of  the  doctrines  of,  say,  St.  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas. He  must,  indeed,  be  a teacher  and  defender  of  the 
great  essentials  of  the  old,  the  primitive,  the  Catholic 
faith;  but  he  must  also  be  a living  voice  through  which 
God,  if  He  does  not  make  new  revelations,  at  least  inter- 
prets His  old  revelations  with  reference  to  the  newer  de- 
velopments of  His  providence. 

But  while  I agree  with  the  representatives  of  this  great 
school  in  the  importance  which  they  attach  to  the  prophetic 
mission  of  the  Christian  ministry,  I am  fully  persuaded 
that  they  are  wrong  in  limiting  the  right  to  preach  to  the 
historic  or  to  any  official  Ministry.  I have  come  firmly  to 
believe  that  there  are  real  prophets,  inspired  prophets, 
who  are  not  Christians  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word; 
and  that  there  are  real  Christian  prophets,  inspired  proph- 
ets, in  Ministries  which  have  never  had  any  connection 
with  the  Historic  Episcopate,  or  which  have  broken  off 
that  connection ; and  that  there  are  real  prophets,  inspired 


PREFACE. 


XI 


prophets,  among  Christian  laymen  and  laywomen  who 
have  never  occupied  a pulpit,  and  whose  congregation 
is  limited  to  a Sunday  School  class. 

TTie  conviction  grows  upon  me  that  prophetic  inspira- 
tion is  not  the  rare,  official,  limited,  little  thing  that  some 
among  us  would  make  it  out  to  be.  It  is  like  the  wind 
that  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  it  is  quite  as  likely  to 
illuminate  the  mind  of  a humble  mother  while  teaching 
her  inattentive  child  the  catechism,  as  that  of  an  illustrious 
Pope  in  his  ex-cathedra  utterances  to  a waiting  world. 

In  the  lectures  of  this  book,  and  in  its  notable  intro- 
duction and  appendix,  three  representatives  of  another 
great  Anglican  school  preach  the  Gospel  of  that  Christian 
unity  which  is  necessary  to  the  evangelization  of  the 
world;  a unity  to  be  accomplished  through  a Common 
Inter-Church  Ministry,  secured  and  maintained  on  the 
perfectly  level  basis  of  the  pure  Republicanism  which 
constitutes  the  heart  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Divine  Republican. 


The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  proceeds  upon  the 
assumption  that  the  Common  Inter-Church  Ministry,  upon 
which  the  carrying  out  of  the  plan  is  dependent,  must  be 
secured  without  compromise  of  principle.  There  are  two 
theories  respecting  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  the  Sacerdotal  or  Priestly  and  the  Repub- 
lican or  Protestant. 

According  to  the  Sacerdotal  theory,  a true  Christian 


Xll 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION, 


ministry  is  dependent  upon  a devolutionary  transmission 
of  authority  and  power  by  an  unbroken  series  of  ordina- 
tions from  the  Lord  Jesus  through  the  original  Eleven 
faithful  Apostles,  or  from  St.  Paul.  Sacerdotalists,  who 
regard  ordination  by  Apostolic  Succession  as  transmit- 
ting the  commission  necessary  to  a valid  Christian  ministry, 
are  either  Episcopalian  or  Presbyterian. 

There  is  a very  large  and  influential  school  in  all  the 
national  Churches  that  constitute  the  Anglican  Commun- 
ion which  holds  that  the  official  acts  of  a Christian  minis- 
ter are  Invalid  unless  he  has  been  ordained  by  a Bishop 
of  the  Apostolic  Succession.  So  important  does  this  doc- 
trine appear  to  the  representatives  of  this  school  that,  in 
order  to  establish  it,  they  have  tried,  some  think  with  suc- 
cess, to  trace  our  Anglican  Episcopate  back,  by  tactual 
succession,  link  by  link,  to  Augustine  of  Canterbury,  and 
from  him  to  St.  John  or  to  St.  Peter. 

There  is  a school  in  some,  if  not  all,  of  the  Presby- 
terian Churches  which  holds  to  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic 
Succession  almost  as  firmly  as  any  among  Episcopalians, 
but  its  representatives  insist  that  the  succession  must  be 
traced  through  the  Presbyterate,  and  that  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  constitute  one  and  the  same  order. 

The  Congregationalists  of  various  names,  among  them 
the  great  Baptist  and  Disciple  Churches,  hold  to  the  non- 
Sacerdotal,  Republican,  Protestant  theory  of  the  origin 
and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  count  minis- 
terial succession,  whether  Episcopalian  or  Presbyterian, 
as  of  no  vital  importance.  They  contend  that  Christian 


PREFACE. 


Xlll 


ministers  are  simply  officers  of  the  Church,  elected  and 
appointed  by  the  people,  and  that,  aside  from  this,  the 
all  important  essential  of  a true  Ministry  is  the  call  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  the  possession  of  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

Sacerdotalists  and  Republicans  agree  that  Divine  grace 
is  necessary  to  efficiency  in  the  preaching  and  sacramental 
ministrations  of  a Christian  minister;  but  they  differ  in  that 
the  former  hold  that  this  grace  is  a transmission  of  power 
from  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  of  ordination,  while  the 
latter  hold  that  it  is  a transmission  of  power  from  the  Holy 
Ghost,  without  any  necessary  connection  with  the  cere- 
mony of  ordination. 

I hope  to  convince  the  reader  of  this  book  that  there 
is  no  reason  why  the  representatives  of  these  diverse  views 
of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry  should 
not  unite  in  constituting  a Common  Inter-Church  Minis- 
try, and  that  I have  discovered  a way  by  which  they 
may  do  so. 


As  my  gospel  of  the  Level  Plan  for  the  unification  of 
Christendom  came  to  me  as  a progressive  revelation  from 
my  personal  experience  as  a missionary  worker,  perhaps 
the  interest  in  it  will  be  increased  if  I give  a short  auto- 
biographical sketch  covering  my  ministerial  life  so  far 
as  it  has  a direct  bearing  upon  this  gospel. 

Let  me  say,  then,  that  I became  a convert  to  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  as  the  result  of  Sacerdotal  teaching  and 
have  been  in  her  Ministry  for  a quarter  of  a century. 


XIV 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


The  whole  of  my  ministerial  life  has  been  spent  in  this 
Church’s  mission  field,  first  as  a Circuit,  then  as  a Gen- 
eral missionary  in  the  Diocese  of  Ohio,  and  afterwards 
as  a Bishop  missionary  in  the  Diocese  of  Arkansas.  I 
have  devoted  every  energy  of  mind  and  body  to  my 
Church  extension  and  upbuilding  work,  much  of  which 
has  been  of  a proselyting  character. 

I have  gloried  in  this  work,  and  have  spent  and  been 
spent  in  it,  because  of  the  conviction  that  in  English- 
speaking  countries,  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion can  make  superior  claims  to  the  allegiance  of 
the  people;  and  that  these  Churches  will  become  the 
several  rallying  points  of  unity,  when  it  shall  please  God 
to  bring  together  into  National  churches  and  Interna- 
tional Communions  all  Christians  of  our  race  into  one  fold, 
under  one  ministerial  shepherding.  In  support  of  this  con- 
viction I preached  and  wrote  a great  deal,  and  not  in 
vain;  for  I have  been  instrumental  in  establishing  many 
Churches  and  in  making  a multitude  of  converts.  Within 
the  twelve  years  since  I became  Bishop  over  forty  Epis- 
copal Churches  have  been  built  in  my  Diocese,  and  it 
has  more  than  doubled  in  every  element  of  strength  of 
which  statistics  can  take  account. 

If  sectarianism  is  to  continue,  I should  much  prefer 
to  be  an  Episcopalian  sectarian,  rather  than  any  other 
kind;  and  so  long  as  it  continues,  or  until  my  tongue 
cleaves  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth,  and  my  right  hand  forgets 
its  cunning,  I may  be  counted  upon  to  speak  and  write 
of  the  superior  claims  of  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican 


PREFACE. 


XV 


Communion  to  the  allegiance  of  English-speaking  people. 

But,  now  that  I have  made  this  declaration  of  loyalty 
to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  particular,  and  to 
the  Anglican  Communion  in  general,  let  me  make  the 
reader  my  confessor. 

As  the  years  have  gone  by,  the  conviction  has  been 
forcing  itself  upon  me,  that  though,  to  others,  I have 
seemed  to  have  had  somewhat  notable  success  as  a mis- 
sionary, I,  to  my  own  mind,  have  failed  in  my  distinctive 
work  as  a Christian  minister;  and  the  pity  of  it  is,  that 
under  present  conditions,  there  is  no  way  of  escape  from 
the  sectarianism  which  has  defeated  my  highest  aim.  I 
must  either  quit  my  missionary  efforts,  or  else  continue  to 
build  up  a sect  at  the  expense  of  other  sects;  and,  try 
as  I will  to  prevent  it,  while  things  remain  as  they  are, 
my  sectarian  work  will  overlap  the  work  of  other  sec- 
tarians; and  this,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  scarcely 
touches  the  hem  of  the  garment  of  the  unchristianized,  and 
of  the  needy  poor  who  are  on  every  side. 

My  work  is  completely  typical  of  nearly  all  successful 
sectarian  ministerial  endeavors.  It  is  to  a great  extent 
a pulling  down  and  a building  up,  at  a tremendous  waste 
of  energy  and  money,  and  in  a shameful  disobedience 
of  our  Lord’s  commands:  “ Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature;”  and  “Let  your 
light  so  shine  before  men  that  they  may  see  your  good 
works,  and  glorify  your  Father  which  is  in  Heaven.” 

If  I have  learned  anything  from  my  experience  and 
observation  as  a sectarian  missionary,  it  is  that  we  cannot 


XVI 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


make  the  real  progress  that  should  be  made  in  the  con- 
quest of  the  world  for  Christ,  unless  we  get  rid  of  our 
sectarianism. 

A very  large  proportion  of  the  classes  which  the  Bishops 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  are  confirming,  is  made  up  of 
Christians  from  other  Churches.  Often  the  majority  of 
a confirmation  class  is  composed  of  such,  and  recently  I 
had  an  experience  which,  notwithstanding  my  thorough- 
going sectarianism,  made  me  heartsick.  I confirmed  a 
class,  all  the  members  of  which  had  been  exemplary 
Christians,  some  among  them  eminently  so,  of  other  relig- 
ious bodies.  For  a long  time  I held  the  theory  that  this 
process  would  rightly  continue  until  the  Episcopal  body 
would  swallow  and  absorb  all  other  Christian  bodies; 
but  now  I see  that  such  a result  is  neither  possible  nor  de- 
sirable. 

Of  course,  as  a sectarian  I welcomed  these  good  people 
into  the  Episcopal  Church  and  would  be  glad  to  see 
many  like  them  in  all  the  classes  presented  to  me  for  con- 
firmation. I always  have  proceeded,  and  probably  always 
shall  proceed,  upon  the  assumption  that  many  of  the 
English-speaking  Denominations  originally  got  all  of  their 
members  from  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican  Communion 
and  that,  therefore,  I have  a right  to  get  back  as  many 
as  I possibly  can  of  their  adherents.  Besides,  to  say 
nothing  about  the  superior,  or  at  least  prior  claims  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  to  the  allegiance  of  English-speaking 
Americans,  this  is  the  land  of  the  free,  where  people 
are  at  liberty  to  follow  their  convictions,  or,  if  they  have 


PREFACE.  xvii 

no  convictions,  their  preferences  in  the  choice  of  their 
Church  relationship. 

But  though  it  is  easy  enough,  by  such  considerations,  to 
justify  my  proselyting  efforts,  it  is  becoming  increasingly 
more  difficult  for  me  to  be  reconciled  to  the  fact  that, 
while  a large  percentage  of  my  confirmation  classes  are 
made  up  of  proselytes  from  the  Presbyterian,  Methodist, 
Baptist  and  other  Churches,  fully  fifty  per  cent  of  the 
adult  population  of  the  United  States  are  not  faithful 
members  of  any  Church.  The  Good  Shepherd  rejoiced 
over  the  one  sheep  that  He  found  in  the  wilderness  more 
than  over  the  ninety-nine  which  did  not  go  astray,  and  I 
have  come  into  the  possession  of  that  measure  of  His  spirit 
which  leads  me  to  prefer  that,  in  making  up  their  con- 
firmation classes,  the  Clergy  should  direct  their  special  ef- 
forts towards  the  securing  of  non-Church  members.  Not 
that  I am  unwilling  to  confirm  ten  times  as  many  proselytes 
as  I do,  but  that  I want  to  confirm  ten  non-Church  members 
to  one  proselyte,  and  that  I have  come  to  regard  a con- 
firmation class  which  is  wholly,  or  even  chiefly  made  up 
of  proselytes  as  an  evidence  of  weakness  rather  than 
strength  in  the  Church  which  should  inspire  regret  instead 
of  satisfaction.  The  Rector  who  presented  the  class 
of  proselytes  to  which  I refer,  was  greatly  elated  at  his 
valuable  catches  from  the  other  Churches,  but,  notwith- 
standing his  enthusiasm,  my  heart  was  heavy  because  he 
had  toiled  all  the  year  without  catching  anything  from  the 
great  sea  of  the  unchurched  world. 

I honestly  believe  that  I am  an  illustration  of  the  power 


XVlll 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


of  a sectarian  leopard  to  change,  by  God’s  grace,  some 
of  his  spots.  For  I have  reached  the  point,  when  I think 
that  Christian  unity  in  the  United  States,  by  an  absorbing 
process  on  the  part  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  would  be  a 
misfortune. 

The  “ United  Church  of  the  United  States  ” cannot 
be  an  old  Church  including  within  its  organization  all 
other  Churches.  It  must  be  a newly  developed,  national 
institution,  resulting  from  the  union  on  an  equal  footing 
of  all  the  orthodox  Churches,  ancient  and  modem.  Sacer- 
dotal and  Republican. 

This  book  was  written  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
( 1 ) the  unification  of  Christendom  necessary  to  the  evan- 
gelization of  the  world  is  dependent  upon  a Common 
Inter-Church  Ministry  and  (2)  that  this  requisite  Ministry 
cannot  exist  except  in  the  case  of  the  Churches  which  mutu- 
ally acknowledge  that  a Church,  whether  ancient  or  mod- 
ern, large  or  small,  which  holds  to  the  belief  that  Jesus  is 
the  God-Man,  Saviour  of  the  world  and  makes  provision 
for  the  teaching  of  this  doctrine  and  the  administration 
of  the  Sacraments  of  Christian  Baptism  and  the  Lord’s 
Supper  is  a true  Church  of  Christ;  that  the  official 
Ministry  of  every  such  Church  is  entirely  regular,  and 
that  the  acts  of  its  representatives  in  preaching  and  ad- 
ministering the  Sacraments  are  completely  valid  and  effi- 
cacious. 

The  Sacerdotal  doctrines  of  the  origin  and  authority 
of  the  Christian  ministry  and  of  the  unnatural  super- 


PREFACE. 


XIX 


natural  effects  of  the  two  Sacraments,  and  other  sacra- 
mental ordinances  are  fully  considered  with  the  result  of 
establishing  the  conclusion  that  they  will  not  stand  the 
test  of  examination  in  the  light  of  either  Scripture,  history 
or  philosophy. 

In  this  general  conclusion  I am  most  ably  supported  by 
two  learned  writers,  the  Rev,  Dr.  George  Williamson 
Smith,  and  “Anglican  Presbyter,”  who  respectively  con- 
tribute to  the  book  an  exceptionally  important  Introduc- 
tion and  Appendix.  They  are  in  themselves  such  distinct 
and  finished  essays  in  support  of  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  that  I may  fairly  claim  for  this  book  that 
it  presents  to  the  public  in  one  volume  three  separate  and 
distinct  works  in  support  of  this  plan. 

In  the  Introduction,  the  traditional  Sacerdotal  claims 
respecting  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  “ Historic  ” Epis- 
copate are  examined  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  afforded 
by  the  New  Testament  and  Patristic  literatures,  with 
the  result  of  showing  that  it  was  developed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  unity  to  the  church;  and  that  therefore 
the  use  of  it  as  a sectarian  asset  is  wrong.  Thus,  the  con- 
clusion is  reached  that  I am  justified  in  proposing  an  Inter- 
Denominational,  non-sectarian  Episcopate  which  will  be- 
come the  center  of  ecclesiastical  unity  in  the  case  of  each 
nation. 

The  primary  object  of  the  Appendix  is  to  show  by 
special  references  to  recognized  authorities,  that  a fun- 
damental contention  which  runs  through  the  lectures  of 
this  book  is  in  exact  alignment  with  the  doctrines  of  the 


XX 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Anglican  Reformers  and  with  the  conclusions  reached 
by  scientific  experts  in  the  field  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities. 
This  contention  is,  that  Christianity  is  essentially  Republi- 
can, or  Democratic,  and  that  therefore  Republicanism 
rather  than  Sacerdotalism  must  be  made  the  basis  of  any 
plan  for  Church  union  in  which  can  reasonably  be  cen- 
tered any  hope  for  success.  But  the  scholarly  and  brilliant 
writer  of  the  Appendix  who,  like  many  another  Christian 
minister  of  extraordinary  gifts  and  acquirements,  is  the 
pastor  of  a small  but  highly  favored  flock,  goes  far  beyond 
this  purpose  by  advancing  and  supporting  independent 
arguments  against  Sacerdotalism,  with  so  much  originality 
and  skilfulness  as  to  render  his  essay  one  of  the  most 
powerful  pieces  of  controversial  literature  that  has  ap- 
peared in  recent  years. 

May  I suggest  that  the  most  advantageous  reading  of 
this  threefold  book  would  be  to  pass  from  its  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Appendix;  then  take  up  its  Lecture  III  and 
afterwards  Lectures  I and  II  in  order.  This  arrangement 
for  the  book  was  of  course  out  of  the  question,  but, 
nevertheless,  it  would  have  been  logical  and  effective. 
Those  who  read  through  the  book  as  it  stands  are  ear- 
nestly recommended  to  go  back  and  re-read  at  least 
Section  II  of  Lecture  II  in  the  light  of  the  information 
that  they  have  gained  from  Lecture  III  and  the  Appendix. 
This  Section  II,  Lecture  II,  is  the  crucial  section  in  which 
the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  is  stated. 

In  Lecture  I,  an  effort  is  made  to  show  that  the  coming 


PREFACE. 


XXI 


together  of  the  Churches,  upon  which  the  universal  exten- 
sion and  full  development  of  Christianity  is  dependent, 
cannot  be  brought  about  upon  any  except  the  exactly 
level  ground  of  pure  Republicanism.  What  is  said  in 
this  section  is  fundamentally  opposed  by  the  Sacerdotal 
doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession.  Accordingly,  it  con- 
tains in  Section  III,  an  effort  to  show  the  untenable  char- 
acter of  that  doctrine. 

In  Lecture  II,  the  plans  for  Church  union,  for  which 
the  many  Churches  stand,  are  grouped  into  three  general 
divisions,  on  the  basis  of  the  chief  principles  involved,  and 
shown  to  be  impracticable.  As  has  just  been  observed, 
in  Section  II  of  this  Lecture  the  plan  which  I am  advocat- 
ing is  clearly  stated  and  securely  supported  by  historical 
facts  and  arguments.  Section  III  is  devoted  to  the  answer 
of  the  chief  objections  that  have  been  offered  to  the  plan. 
Much  labour  was  bestowed  upon  this  section  and  con- 
siderable space  given  to  it,  because  of  the  conviction  that 
if  the  objections  which  pass  under  review  here  can  be  set 
aside,  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  may  be  regarded 
as  invulnerable  against  any  attack  that  can  be  made 
upon  it. 

In  Lecture  III,  the  writings  of  the  great  Sacerdotal 
authorities.  Bishop  Gore  and  Professor  Moberly  of  Eng- 
land, and  Bishop  Hall,  of  the  United  States,  are  exam- 
ined. Copious  and  telling  quotations  which  give  support 
to  the  positions  taken  by  me  here  and  elsewhere  are  made 
from  the  writings  of  the  chief  experts  in  the  science  of 


XXIl 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


historical  criticism.  It  is  believed  that  they  will  generally 
be  regarded  as  most  interesting,  illuminating  and  conclu- 
sive. 

The  answer  by  “ Anglican  Presbyter,”  to  Bishop 
Hall’s  representations  in  his  recently  published  and  widely 
read  essay,  “ The  Apostolic  Ministry,”  is  in  itself  worth 
the  price  of  this  volume.  It  is  printed  as  a supplement  to 
the  Appendix. 

On  a recent  visit  to  the  home  country,  one  of  the  Bishops 
of  an  English  colony,  who  is  doing  work  in  a difficult 
mission  field,  where  he  deeply  feels  the  necessity  for 
Church  union,  offered  the  suggestion  that  the  universities 
of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  should  make  provision  for  the 
meeting  of  the  great  need  of  an  up-to-date  restatement,  in 
the  light  of  the  facts  established  by  the  science  of  historical 
criticism,  of  the  whole  Anglican  system  of  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Christian  church,  ministry  and  sacraments, 
in-so-far  as  that  system  bears  upon  the  subject  of  Church 
union. 

The  authors  of  this  tripartite  book,  in  common  with 
many  others,  felt  the  need  for  such  a restatement  long 
before  eloquent  expression  was  given  to  it  in  one  of  the 
stirring  missionary  addresses  of  this  returned  colonial 
Bishop;  and,  though  they  have  no  idea  that  their  humble 
efforts  will  render  it  any  the  less  desirable  that  the  carry- 
ing out  of  his  wise  suggestion  to  the  great  universities  should 
be  arranged  for  by  their  authorities,  yet  they  humbly  be- 
lieve that  no  restatement  of  the  kind  that  might  be  made 
by  representative  Oxford  and  Cambridge  scholars,  would 


PREFACE. 


xxni 


in  any  important  respect,  except  in  fullness  only,  differ 
widely  from  that  which  is  here  presented  as  the  result  of 
their  combined  efforts. 

I have  chosen  to  denominate  my  plan  for  Church  union, 
“ The  Level  Plan,”  though  perhaps,  “ The  Inter-Church 
Episcopate  Plan,”  or  “ The  Common  Ministry  Plan,” 
or  ” The  National  Council  Plan  ” would  have  been  as 
good  a designation  of  it.  The  contents  would  also  justify 
the  title  which  Bishop  Gore  gave  to  his  last  book,  ” Orders 
and  Unity,”  or  better,  “ The  Christian  Ministry  and 
Church  Union.” 

The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  is  my  individual , un- 
official interpretation  of  the  official  plan  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  and  of  the  semi-official  plan  of  the  rest 
of  the  Anglican  Communion,  as  set  forth  in  the 
fourth  article  of  the  so  called  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadri- 
lateral. 

I want  most  thankfully  to  acknowledge  my  very  great 
obligation  to  some  six  or  eight  friends  who  have  been 
so  kind  as  to  take  much  interest  in  this  book.  They 
have  allowed  me  to  put  them  to  the  trouble  of  reading  the 
whole  of  its  first  draft,  and  large  parts  of  the  several 
revisions  that  were  made  before  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  was  finally  worked  out  as  it  is  now  presented  to 
the  public.  Their  criticisms  have  resulted  in  the  improve- 
ment of  many  passages  throughout  the  book,  and  also  in 
the  writing  of  that  important  section  of  it  in  which  the 
chief  objections  to  the  plan  are  stated  and  answered. 

The  Rev.  Quincy  Ewing  has  been  of  so  much  service 


XXIV 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


to  me  and  has  left  such  a deep  impression  upon  the  book 
as  to  cause  me  to  feel  that  he  should  be  mentioned  by 
name.  I started  out  with  the  conviction  that  the  necessary 
coming  together  of  the  Churches  could  never  be  secured 
on  the  uneven  ground  of  Sacerdotalism  which,  as  I had 
come  to  believe,  is  essentially  Jewish  and  Heathen,  and 
that,  consequently,  the  perfectly  level  ground  of  Christian 
Republicanism  must  be  selected  as  the  place  for  the  requi- 
site reunion.  When  I had  carefully  surveyed  and  staked 
off  what  I supposed  to  be  this  ground,  Mr.  Ewing  pointed 
out  that,  according  to  the  bearings  which  he  took,  I had 
not,  here  and  there,  altogether  avoided  the  Sacerdotal  do- 
main. After  much  correspondence,  I became  convinced 
that  he  was  right  and  made  the  necessary  changes  in  my 
lines.  Without  these  changes  the  book  would  have  been 
wanting  in  logical  consistency.  During  the  remainder  of 
my  life,  I shall  thank  God  upon  every  remembrance  of 
Mr.  Ewing. 

In  concluding  these  prefatory  remarks,  may  I,  so  to 
speak,  rise  to  a question  of  personal  privilege,  by  making 
reference  to  the  painful  consciousness  of  the  fact  that  my 
book,  “ The  Church  for  Americans,”  is  in  part  irrec- 
oncilable with  “ The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union.” 
Indeed,  the  books  differ  as  a whole  in  that  “ The  Church 
for  Americans  ” is  a criticism  of  Protestantism,  written 
from  the  Sacerdotal  view  point;  and  that  “The  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union  ” is  a criticism  of  Sacerdotalism, 
written  from  the  Protestant  point  of  view. 


PREFACE. 


XXV 


But  I am  happy  in  being  able  to  say  that,  notwith- 
standing I was,  in  the  days  of  its  writing,  a thorough-going 
“ Catholic,”  ‘‘  The  Church  for  Americans  ” contains  very 
few  Sacerdotal  passages,  none  of  which  are  of  a virulent 
type.  But  such  as  they  are  I trust  that  they  will  be  for- 
given me  by  God  and  man,  because  of  my  regret  for 
them  and  also  on  account  of  the  Lecture  in  that  work, 
entitled,  “ Our  Controversy  with  Romanism,”  which  is 
an  attack  on  the  very  citadel  of  Sacerdotalism  that  has 
never  been  repulsed. 

This  section  of  “ The  Church  for  Americans  ” and 
many  shorter  passages  of  the  same  character,  have  pre- 
vented the  book  from  becoming  popular  in  the  “ Catholic  ” 
school  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  so  that,  though 
it  has  passed  through  many  editions,  nineteen,  I think,  very 
few  copies  have  been  purchased  and  circulated,  as  proselyt- 
ing instrumentalities,  by  representatives  of  that  school. 
The  many  Clergymen  and  Laymen  who  have  used  the 
book  extensively,  several  among  them  purchasing  twenty- 
five,  and  two  or  three  as  many  as  fifty  copies  at  a time, 
have  been  almost  without  exception  either  “ low  ” or 
“ broad  ” or  conservative  ” high  ” Churchmen. 

The  evening  of  life  is  upon  me,  and  it  will  have  to  be 
longer  than  I fear  it  will  be,  if,  before  that  night  cometh 
in  which  no  man  can  work,  I accomplish  all  the  undertak- 
ings that  I have  planned.  It  is  not  likely  therefore,  that  I 
shall  ever  find  time  to  rewrite  “ The  Church  for  Ameri- 
cans;” and  while  sectarianism  continues,  I shall  remain 
too  much  of  an  Anglican  sectarian  to  withdraw  it. 


XXVI 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION, 


Of  course,  the  next  edition  of  “ The  Church  for  Ameri- 
cans,” if  another  is  called  for,  will,  no  preventing  Provi- 
dence, contain  an  additional  preface,  in  which  my  radical 
and  happy  change  of  front  will  be  frankly  avowed.  It 
will  have  a full  list  of  the  Sacerdotal  passages  and  a cor- 
rection of  their  erroneous  teaching.  If,  however,  I should 
not  be  permitted  to  prepare  and  publish  such  a correction 
of  what  there  is  of  the  false  doctrine  of  Sacerdotalism, 
I here  earnestly  request  that,  in  view  of  the  true  Gospel 
Republicanism  of  “ The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union.” 
and  its  recently  published  predecessor,  “ The  Crucial  Race 
Question,”  no  man  will  charge  against  me  the  errors  of 
“ The  Church  for  Americans,”  a book,  written  at  a much 
earlier  period,  which  reflects  more  of  the  teaching  that  I 
received  at  the  theological  seminary  than  of  the  results  of 
my  own  independent  investigation  and  thinking. 

And  may  I not  humbly  plead  that  the  inconsistency  of 
my  earlier  and  later  writings  is  in  principle  the  same  in- 
consistency that  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter  manifested.  For 
at  first  they  believed  that  the  only  way  in  which  they  could 
accomplish  God’s  purposes  would  be  by  going  to  the 
world  w’ith  the  Gospel  through  Judaism,  but  afterwards 
they  concluded,  as  the  result  of  experience,  that  they  must 
abandon  that  plan  and  go  directly  to  the  nations. 

St.  Paul  was  a strict  Jew.  He  was  a Pharisee,  a party 
in  the  Jewish  Church  which  corresponds  to  the  “ Catholic  ” 
party  in  the  Anglican  Churches,  and  he  was  also  a Rabbi. 
He  never  quite  got  over  his  Rabbinism.  His  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Gospel  to  the  end  was  colored  with  it.  But 


PREFACE. 


XXVll 


he  left  his  Pharisaism  very  far  behind.  He  at  last  found 
himself  so  immeasurably  distant  from  it  that  he  could  say 
of  the  Jewish  Church  and  its  ceremonial  requirements, 
“Christ  is  the  abrogation  of  the  law.”  From  that  time 
on,  St.  Paul’s  preaching  and  work  had  reference  to  Chris- 
tianity as  a world  religion,  which  was  to  be  regarded  as 
quite  separate  and  distinct  from  Judaism.  Henceforth  he 
taught  that  the  Gospel  included  all  nations  on  exactly 
the  same  footing. 

My  doctrine  concerning  the  essential  equality  of  the 
orthodox  Christian  churches,  ancient  and  modern.  Epis- 
copal and  non-Episcopal,  a doctrine  which  constitutes  the 
cornerstone  of  the  foundation  upon  which  The  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union  is  rested,  involves  the  very  same  prin- 
ciple that  was  involved  in  St.  Paul’s  doctrine  that  no 
distinction  is  to  be  made  between  the  representatives  of 
Judaism  and  Heathenism  as  to  their  relationship  to  Jesus 
and  their  standing  in  the  Christian  church. 

I cannot  get  away  altogether  from  my  Protestant  Epis- 
copalianism,  even,  if  I may  reverently  make  such  a com- 
parison, as  St.  Paul  could  not  get  away  altogether  from 
his  Judaism.  He  believed  until  the  end  that  Judaism 
had  certain  great  advantages  over  all  other  religions,  and  I 
believe  this  of  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican  Communion, 
as  compared  with  any  other  Christian  church.  But,  as 
St.  Paul  ceased  to  believe  that  the  world  was  to  be  saved 
through  a judaized  Christianity,  so  I have  ceased  to  believe 
that  its  salvation  is  dependent  upon  an  anglicanlzed  Chris- 
tianity. 


XXVllI 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Those  who  may  desire  to  examine  the  representations 
which  constitute  the  basis  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union,  in  the  light  of  the  great  authorities  who  have 
written  on  both  sides,  will  find  a list  of  their  works  fol- 
lowing the  Index. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  volume  I have  devoted  every 
moment  for  the  last  three  years  that  could  possibly  be 
taken  from  “ the  care  of  all  the  Churches,”  and  I respect- 
fully invoke  for  this  the  first  fruit  of  my  assiduous  labors 
on  behalf  of  Church  union,  the  thoughtful  consideration 
of  the  reader. 

The  Episcopal  Residence.  W.  M.  B. 

Little  Rock,  Arkansas. 

St.  Bartholomen)' s Day,  1910. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION  1 

LECTURE  I. 

THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE 73 

I.  A Notable  Prophecy 75 

II.  Republicanism  the  Basis 78 

III.  The  Apostolic  Succession 110 

LECTURE  II. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN 159 

I.  The  Various  Plans 161 

II.  The  Level  Plan 167 

III.  The  Chief  Objections 232 

LECTURE  III. 

SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES 261 

I.  Gore  and  Moberly 263 

II.  Hall’s  “Apostolic  Ministry” '.  281 

III.  The  Historical  Critics 320 

IV.  Grace  of  Sacraments 347 

APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES 371 

APPENDIX 391 


“ It  is  thought  by  many  that  the  two  chief 

CONCERNS  OF  THE  TWENTIETH  CENTURY  WILL  BE  THE 
CONQUEST  OF  THE  AIR  AND  THE  CONQUEST  OF  THE 
ETHER.  BUT  THIS  IS  A MISTAKE.  THE  TWO  CHIEF 
CONCERNS  OF  THE  TWENTIETH  CENTURY  ARE  NOT 
AERONAUTICS  AND  WIRELESS  TELEGRAPHY ; THEY  ARE 
INTERNATIONAL  ARBITRATION  AND  THE  UNIFYING  OF 
THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  THESE  TWO  SUPREME  IN- 
TERESTS ARE  CLOSELY  ALLIED,  TANGENT,  NAY,  INTER- 
LOCKED AT  MANY  POINTS.  IT  WAS  A UNITED  CHURCH 
WHICH  IN  OUR  MOTHERLAND  CREATED  OUT  OF  A HEP- 
TARCHY A REALM,  AND  IT  MAY  YET  BE  THE  ACHIEVE- 
MENT OF  A UNITED  CHURCH  TO  TRANSFORM  THE  VAST 
WELTER  OF  COMPETING  FORCES  WE  CALL  THE  WORLD 
POLITICAL  INTO  A TRUE  COSMOS,  A UNITED  SYSTEM  OF 
STATES  AND  GROUP  OF  STATES  WHICH  SHALL  REPRO- 
DUCE ON  A FAR  LARGER  SCALE  THE  ANCIENT  CHRIS- 
TENDOM.”— The  Late  Rev.  Dr.  William  Reed  Hut\U 
ington. 


The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOP/AENT  OE  TEE 
HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 


BY  THE 


REV.  GEORGE  WILLIAA\SON  SniTH, 

D.  D.,  LL.D. 

I 

SOA\ETlA\E  PRESIDENT  OE  TRINITY 
COLLEGE. 


CONTENTS. 


I.  Prefatory  Note 3 

II.  Bishops  in  the  New  Testament 11 

III.  The  Transition  from  Apostolic  to 

Episcopal  Oversight 20 

IV.  View  taken  of  Bishops  by  the  Reformers.  57 

V.  Importance  of  the  Question  in  its 

Relation  to  Ecclesiastical  Unity 65 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  DCVELOPiAENT  OF  THE 
HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE- 


1. 

PREFATORY  NOTE. 

The  following  paper  was  written  at  the  request  of 
Bishop  William  M.  Brown,  of  Arkansas.  The 
materials  were  mostly  gathered  Immediately  after 
the  Protestant  Churches  had  so  promptly  and  unanimously 
rejected  the  famous  “ Quadrilateral  ” because  it  made 
the  retention  of  the  “ Historic  Episcopate  ” one  of  the 
conditions  of  Church  Unity.  It  was  frequently  asserted 
that  the  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  “ Apostolic  Suc- 
cession,” as  held  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
was  really  included  in  the  term,  “ Historic  Episcopate,” 
and  Involved  an  abandonment  of  the  Protestant  position. 
Some  denied  that  there  was  any  such  succession;  or  else 
they  held  that  the  Episcopal  system  was  not  essential  to 
the  Being  of  the  Church;  that  it  could  be  abolished,  and 


4 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


other  polities  substituted  as  circumstances  demanded. 
This  summary  rejection  of  the  “ Quadrilateral  ” was  a 
great  disappointment  to  its  supporters. 

1 he  desire  for  Christian  unity  was  in  the  air  but  if  the 
“ Quadrilateral,”  with  the  Jure  Divino  doctrine  of  the 
Episcopate,  presented  the  lowest  terms  on  which  the  Epis- 
copal Church  would  consent  to  consider  the  question  it 
had  with  one  blow  destroyed  the  possibility  of  even  its 
consideration.  Now,  a theory,  or  an  institution  which  is 
destructive  of  unity  must  be  established  beyond  question. 
The  Episcopate  might  be  apostolical  and  yet  provisional, 
or  it  might  be  obligatory  for  all  ages.  Many  Christian 
people  take  the  former  view,  but  the  overwhelming  major- 
ity, the  latter.  Again  it  is  possible  that  an  institution  de- 
signed to  be  permanent  may  become  too  rigid  and  fail  to 
adapt  itself  to  the  varying  needs  of  human  society  and 
require  readjustment.  In  its  development  its  supporters 
may  gradually  grow  into  the  conviction  that  even  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  instituted  is  secondary,  or  can  be 
realized  only  through  its  instrumentality,  and  abuses  arise 
from  this  conviction.  This  was  the  case  with  the  Papacy 
and  the  Reformation  was  the  consequence.  Has  there 
been  “ too  much  stiffness  ” in  our  attitude  towards  other 
Churches?  In  the  early  Church  the  Episcopate  was  the 
“ Bond  of  Unity.”  Why  should  it  not  be  so  to-day? 

For  the  study  of  what  was  involved  in  the  fourth  ar- 
ticle of  the  “ Quadrilateral  ” the  League  of  Catholic 
Unity  was  formed  on  the  initiative  of  the  late  Rev.  Dr. 
W.  R.  Huntington.  It  was  to  be  under  the  direction  of 


INTRODUCTION. 


5 


twelve  Clergymen  who  represented  equally  the  Congrega- 
tional, Presbyterial  and  Episcopal  polities.  The  number 
of  directors  was  afterwards  increased  to  twenty.  The  ob- 
ject of  The  League  was  the  formation  of  groups  or  circles 
of  scholarly  men  in  different  parts  of  the  country  for  the 
study  of  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  Episcopate.  The 
League  was  dissolved  after  a few  annual  meetings,  be- 
cause interest  in  the  subject  had  waned.  But  in  the  mean- 
time much  reading  had  been  done  and  a great  mass  of 
notes  and  memoranda  accumulated. 

In  correspondence  with  Bishop  Brown  last  year  it  was 
learned  that  he  thought  the  result  of  the  inquiry  would  be 
of  value  to  him  in  some  work  which  he  was  doing.  Accord- 
ingly the  notes  and  recollections  were  gathered  together 
and  put  into  such  order  as  a migratory  life  of  some  months 
on  the  Pacific  coast,  where  the  necessary  books  are  scarce, 
permitted.  In  the  absence  of  books  to  consult  much  was 
done  without  an  opportunity  to  compare  the  notes  with  the 
originals.  When  the  work  was  nearly  completed  Bishop 
Lightfoot’s  thorough  and  scholarly  essay  on  the  Christian 
Ministry  was  again  met  with.  The  gratification  at  find- 
ing that  his  view  was  substantially  the  same  in  many  par- 
ticulars was  very  great.  No  doubt  it  had  been,  uncon- 
sciously, a directing  thought  in  the  studies.  Yet  it  is  only 
fair  to  say  that  the  paper  has  not  been  modified  in  conse- 
quence of  rereading  it. 

The  Church  of  to-day  cannot  sever  itself  from  its  past. 
Its  life  has  been  continuous  in  all  the  varied  experiences 
of  nearly  nineteen  hundred  years,  and  it  has  been  enriched 


6 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


by  the  wisdom  of  saintly  men  and  women  who,  though 
counted  dead,  still  speak  in  its  voice.  It  is  the  great  ad- 
vantage which  a historic  institution  cannot  be  deprived  of 
that  in  any  emergency  it  may  look  back  and  see  what  was 
done  under  like  circumstances  by  men  who  were  moved 
to  action  by  the  same  purposes,  note  the  result  of  their 
action,  see  in  what  respects  it  failed  or  succeeded,  and 
thus  be  guided  in  the  path  of  wisdom  to  meet  the  difficul- 
ties of  later  times.  It  is  true  that  there  is  never  an 
exact  repetition  of  what  occurred  before,  but  in  a long 
period  of  history  there  will  be  to  some  degree  a corres- 
pondence between  the  two.  Often  both  will  be  found  to 
arise  from  the  same  causes,  and  often  they  can  be  settled 
by  the  same  principles.  Sometimes  there  must  be  a reces- 
sion from  a present  position  or  attitude,  sometimes  an  ad- 
vance by  one  party  or  another  in  the  composition  of  dif- 
ferences; sometimes  both  must  change  one  way  or  another 
to  restore  peace.  Always  a conciliatory,  a Christian  atti- 
tude towards  each  other,  is  essential  to  the  composition  of 
differences. 

One  who  accepted  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion through,  and  only  through  the  Episcopate,  as  the 
doctrine  was  taught  by  the  High  Churchmen  of  fifty  or 
sixty  years  ago,  is  destined  to  many  surprises.  He  will 
find  the  evidence  less  clear  than  he  anticipated.  It  will  be 
supported  by  fewer  early  authorities  than  its  advocates 
claim,  and  there  will  be  more  evidence  than  is  conceded 
by  its  opponents.  It  will  be  difficult  to  discover  contem- 
porary evidence  of  the  prescriptive  institute  of  the  Epis- 


INTRODUCTION. 


7 


copate  by  the  Twelve  Apostles  as  an  essential  accompani- 
ment of  the  Gospel,  and  we  feel  that  if  there  had  been 
such  evidence  in  a matter  so  Important  it  would  not  have 
been  permitted  to  perish.  May  it  not  be  possible  in  rea- 
soning back  from  accomplished  facts  to  find  another  cause 
for  the  universal  existence  of  Bishops  in  the  Christian 
church  in  the  second  or  third  century  than  its  apostolic 
institution?  If  so,  it  may  open  the  way  to  a reconsidera- 
tion of  the  rejection  of  the  Episcopate  by  the  Protestant 
Churches  and  it  may  come  to  be  valued  by  them,  as  it  is 
by  the  majority  of  our  own  people,  as  divinely  appointed 
through  the  agency  of  the  Church  Itself  (and  therefore 
subject  to  laws  enacted  by  the  Church)  for  the  establish- 
ment and  maintenance  of  unity,  purity  of  doptrlne  and 
efficiency  in  doing  the  work  of  our  Lord. 

By  what  authority,  then,  were  Bishops  appointed?  If 
the  Order  was  created  by  the  Twelve  Apostles  was  it 
their  intention  to  perpetuate  their  Apostleship  through  all 
the  ages  as  indispensable  to  the  Church’s  existence?  Or 
were  Bishops  appointed  originally,  whether  by  apostolical 
or  ecclesiastical  authority,  rather  for  “ the  edifying  and 
well  governing  of  the  Church  ” as  our  Ordinal  declares? 

It  may  be  stated  for  such  as  may  read  this  prefatory 
note  but  do  not  care  to  read  the  paper  that  the  conclusion 
arrived  at  is,  contrary  to  the  writer’s  original  view,  that 
the  Apostles  did  not  at  the  beginning  of  the  Church  im- 
pose upon  it  a ready-made  organization  but  rather  per- 
mitted one  to  grow  up  naturally  under  the  operation  of 
The  Divine  Spirit.  Such  an  one  would  be  best  suited  to 


8 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


a voluntary  and  rapidly  growing  Society  and  would  be  no 
less  Divinely  ordered.  When  they  were  appealed  to  in 
an  emergency,  as  when  Deacons  were  appointed,  they 
associated  the  disciples  with  themselves  and  sanctioned 
the  conclusion  at  which  they  arrived.  There  are  a few 
traces  of  a tentative  Episcopate  in  the  New  Testament 
but  no  theory  of  it  is  propounded.  The  Episcopate  was 
apparentl])  instituted  by  St.  John  near  the  end  of  his  life 
in  Ephesus  ^nd  its  neighborhood  in  such  Churches  as  re- 
quested it,  and  under  the  apostolic  sanction  it  spread  grad- 
ually throughout  the  whole  Church.  It  seems  not  to  have 
been  prescribed  by  St.  John  but  he  approved,  sanctioned, 
and  gave  the  Apostolic  benediction  to  what  had  grown 
up  out  of.J:he  experiences  of  the  Church  during  the  first 
century  of  Christianity.  It  met  the  needs  of  the  Church 
at  that  time  and  continues  to  this  day  as,  under  his  bless- 
ing, an  Apostolic  institution. 

Yet  it  should  be  noted,  to  prevent  misunderstanding, 
that  there  is  no  contemporary  evidence  that  St.  John  insti- 
tuted it  and  until  further  evidence  is  brought  forward  the 
statement  is  open  to  question. 

When  we  are  theological  students  we  receive  such 
instruction  as  satisfies  our  minds  in  regard  to  the 
polity  of  our  own  Church.  The  representations  are 
based  upon  authorities  selected  by  revered  teachers 
and  are  passed  along  from  one  generation  of  students 
to  another.  This  furnishes  a basis  for  our  future 
work.  Our  active  life  in  the  Minfstry  leaves  little  time 


INTRODUCTION. 


9 


for  additional  study  of  the  question,  even  if  we  should 
think  it  desirable,  and  so  we  become  “ set  ” in  our  way 
of  regarding  our  polity.  But  if  a time  comes  when  we 
are  called  upon  to  consider  the  real  cause  of  our  separa- 
tion from  those  other  Churches  in  which  we  may  have 
dear  friends  who  have  been  trained  in  methods  like  our 
own,  though  in  a different  direction,  we  find  it  difficult, 
if  not  impossible,  to  remain  unmoved.  Unfortunately, 
owing  to  the  multitude  of  claims  upon  her,  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  is  weak  in  universities  and 
in  ripe  scholars  trained  in  the  methods  of  to-day  to  whom 
we  may  turn.  Finding  that  “ much  may  be  said  on  the 
other  side  ” we  may  doubt  the  sufficiency  of  our  inherited 
views  and  say  that  “ one  polity  is  as  good  as  another  if 
it  makes  good  Christians,”  or  we  may  strengthen  ourselves 
in  our  position  by  passing  lightly  by,  or  refusing  attention 
to  what  our  Brethren  “ on  the  other  side  ” have  found 
sufficient  for  them.  In  what  I shall  write  I cannot  claim 
to  be  disinterested,  or  unbiased;  but  only  as  fairly  honest 
as  the  case  permits. 

If  the  theory  be  held  that  the  Episcopate  was  instituted 
by  the  Apostles  to  perpetuate  their  own  order,  as  above 
and  distinct  from  the  body  of  the  Church  itself,  possess- 
ing inalienable  powers,  rights  and  privileges  and  discharg- 
ing its  functions  independently  of  the  Church’s  authority, 
and  if  it  be  held  that  this  order  is  “ a rider  ” to  the 
Gospel  so  that  the  Gospel  cannot  be  savingly  preached 
nor  the  Sacraments  be  validly  and  efficiently  administered 
without  Episcopal  authority,  then  the  extension  of  thq 


10 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Episcopate  is  of  vital  importance.  The  only  possible  way 
of  re-establishing  unity  is  by  the  absorption  of  the  non- 
Episcopal  Churches  either  by  their  corporate  surrender  to 
the  Episcopal  Church,  or  by  the  gradual  transfer  of  their 
members  until  those  Churches  cease  to  exist. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Episcopate  was  created  by 
the  Church  under  apostolic  sanction,  or  came  into  being 
in  the  order  of  God’s  Providence  as  the  best  means  of 
securing  sound  doctrine,  order  and  unity,  but  was  not  pre- 
scribed as  perpetual  and  unchangeable,  a departure  from 
it  by  some  Churches  under  changed  circumstances,  would 
not  destroy  essential  unity  nor  prevent  later  readjustment 
for  the  re-establishment  of  that  uniformity  by  which 
unity  would  again  be  manifested  and  secured.  Indeed, 
in  the  Lutheran  Church,  that  part  which  is  in  Sweden  re- 
tains the  Episcopal  Polity  while  the  Church  generally  is 
Presbyterial,  but  its  unity  is  not  destroyed. 

This  study  into  the  development  of  the  organization 
of  the  Christian  church,  especially  in  regard  to  the  origin 
and  nature  of  the  Episcopate,  was  undertaken  m the  hope 
of  finding  some  principle  to  guide  us  in  the  effort  to  arrive 
at  a basis  of  ecclesiastical  unity.  What  I had  been  taught 
and  had  accepted  as  sufficient  no  longer  satisfied  me.  It 
presented  harder  problems  than  those  it  solved. 


INTRODUCTION. 


11 


II. 

BISHOPS  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Bingham  tells  us  (Bk.  II,  cH.  i,  Sec.  3)  that  the 
words  of  Tertullian  imply  “ That  the  Apostles,  as 
they  founded  Churches,  settled  Bishops  in  them.” 
Without  questioning  the  accuracy  of  this  statement  we  may 
doubt  its  sufficiency,  for  we  learn  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  many  Churches  came  into  existence  by  the  labors 
of  others  than  the  Apostles. 

In  Acts  viii,  4,  we  read  that  they  who  were  scattered 
abroad  in  the  persecution  which  arose  about  Stephen  went 
about  preaching  the  Word.  It  is  certain  that  not  all  the 
disciples  were  Apostles.  Some  of  them  were,  no  doubt, 
laymen,  as  Apollos  was.  So  also  in  Acts  viii,  40,  we 
read  that  Philip,  the  Deacon,  preached  in  all  the  villages 
from  Azotus  to  Caesarea.  Many  Churches,  then,  must 
have  had  their  beginnings  in  the  work  of  others  than  the 
Apostles.  Even  many  which  became  illustrious  subse- 
quently, could  give  no  account  of  their  origin.  Is  there 
any  account  of  the  beginning  of  the  Church  in  Great  Bri- 
tain, or  in  the  city  of  Rome,  for  example?  Milman  tells 
us  that  “ St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans  proves  undeni- 
ably the  flourishing  state  of  the  Church  before  his  visit  to 
the  city;  ” nor  could  St.  Peter  have  been  in  Rome  before 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  Claudius,  or  the  beginning  of  that 


12 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


of  Nero,  “ The  Gospel  had  filtered  into  Rome  ” long 
before  any  Apostle  went  there.  Ecclesiastical  history  is 
silent  on  the  beginnings  of  the  Church  in  many  cities  and 
countries.  All  Christians  felt  bound  to  preach  the  Gospel 
wherever  they  went,  and  the  rapid  spread  of  the  Gospel 
by  the  preaching  of  others  than  the  Apostles  compelled 
the  new  disciples  in  many  places  to  provide  for  the  admin- 
istration of  the  offices  and  sacraments  as  best  they  could. 

It  is  worth  while  to  recall  that  the  early  Gentile 
Churches  were  generally  composed  of  Greeks,  or  of  those 
who  used  the  Greek  language,  and  that  the  Churches  were 
voluntary  associations  and  were  as  readily  organized  by 
the  freedom-loving  Greeks  as  if  they  had  been  composed 
of  American  citizens.  The  whole  Empire  was  honey- 
combed with  voluntary  associations.  Ordinarily  one  or 
more  officers  were  appointed  who  were  called  by  names 
suitable  to  the  nature  of  the  association.  When  we  first 
find  such  a voluntarily  organized  Christian  society  we 
meet  the  name,  or  title  Eplscopus,  or  Episcopi.  This  was 
not  an  ecclesiastical  term  but  is  used  in  the  general  sense 
of  “ overseer  ” or  superintendent.  The  Septuagint,  in  the 
Greek  translation  of  Nehemiah  xi,  1 4,  calls  Zabdiel,  who 
was  over  certain  men  who  did  the  work  of  the  House  of 
the  Lord,  their  Bishop;  and  in  verse  9,  Joel,  the  son  of 
Zichri,  was  Bishop  of  the  sons  of  Benjamin  who  dwelt 
in  Jerusalem,  And  in  the  Apocrypha  (I  Mac.  i,  51  ) we 
read  that  Antiochus  Epiphanes  sent  Bishops  into  the  Holy 
Land  to  extirpate  Judaism  and  set  up  idols.  The  Atheni- 
ans used  to  send  officers  who  were  called  “ Bishops  ” to 


INTRODUCTION. 


13 


exercise  a superintending  authority  in  cities  of  their  “ sub- 
ject-allies ” and  Cicero  speaks  of  himself  as  Episcopus  in 
Campania  (Ep.  to  Atticus  7:11).  St.  Peter  uses  the  term 
in  its  highest  application  in  his  First  Epistle  (ii,  25,)  and 
again  in  composition  in  quite  a different  sense  (iv,  15). 
But  while  the  term  Episcopus,  or  Bishop,  had  not  the  highly 
technical  meaning  of  later  ecclesiastical  history  it  was  not 
incapable  of  a religious  significance.  All  the  collegia  or 
voluntary  societies  had  some  religious  background  and 
worshipped  as  their  Protector  some  one  of  the  gods. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  reason  of  its  employment 
at  first — and  it  does  not  seem  difficult  to  account  for  its 
use — the  duties  of  the  office  in  a religious  society  would 
at  once  give  it  an  ecclesiastical  character.  The  New 
Testament  generally  recognizes  more  than  one  Bishop 
in  a Church,  and  possibly  they  corresponded  to  an  execu- 
tive committee  of  our  day,  of  which  one  of  them  would  be 
chairman  or  chief.  As  the  Episcopi  were  largely  engaged 
in  the  care  and  disbursement  of  money  and  are  associated 
in  the  New  Testament  with  the  Deacons  who  distributed 
the  alms,  it  is  not  improbable  that  they  received  their  title 
from  the  nature  of  their  duties.  The  importance  of  the 
charitable  features  of  early  Christianity  made  the  office 
a very  responsible  one  and  its  honor  and  power  rapidly 
increased.  The  Episcopi  seem  to  have  gradually  ac- 
quired, if,  indeed,  they  did  not  possess  them  from  the  first, 
the  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual  powers  which  were  exercised 
by  the  Presbyters  of  the  Jewish-Christian  churches  (if 
there  were  any  such  Presbyters,  in  Philippi  for  example. 


14 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


which  we  are  not  told) , and  the  terms  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byter became  synonymous.  Other  duties  such  as  the  cor- 
respondence with  other  Churches  naturally  devolved  upon 
them  as  representatives  of  their  respective  Churches. 
Take  it  all  in  all,  such  a development  of  the  Episcopate 
as  occurred  was  according  to  the  law  of  human  progress. 
These  nascent  Churches  chose  their  Episcopi  according  to 
the  custom  of  other  associations.^  The  simplicity  of  the 
early  Christian  societies  where  no  regular  clerical  order 
had  been  established  is  thus  described  by  Tertullian  in  his 
treatise  on  Chastity: 

“ The  authority  of  the  Church  and  the  honor  sanctified 
through  the  establishment  (concessum)'^  of  the  Order  (of 
the  Clergy)  has  constituted  the  difference  between  the 
Order  and  the  people.  Accordingly  where  there  is  no 
establishment  of  the  ecclesiastical  Order,  you  offer,  and 
baptize  and  are  Priest  alone  for  yourself.  But  where  there 
are  three$  there  is  the  Church,  though  they  may  be  lay- 
men. Therefore,  if  you  have  the  right  of  a Priest  in  your 
own  person,  in  case  of  necessity,  it  behooves  you  to  have 
also  the  discipline  of  a Priest.” 

* Didache  xv.  Elect,  therefore,  for  yourselves  Bishops  and  Deacons 
worthy  of  the  Lord,  etc. 

■f  Thelwall  translates:  “ the  honor  which  has  acquired  sanctity  through 
the  joint  session  of  the  Order.” 

f Some  years  ago  I happened  to  spend  Sunday  in  a village  in  Tennes- 
see. Asking  where  Divine  Service  was  to  be  held  I was  told  that  there 
was  no  Church  or  Clergyman  of  any  kind  in  the  place  but  that  a blacksmith 
sometimes  called  the  people  together  and  preached.  He  had  “ called  the 
people  together  ” that  day  in  the  school  house,  where  he  conducted  Services 
and  preached  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  people.  The  Baptists  have  since 
built  a chapel  there  and  hold  occasional  services.  On  another  occasion  in 
North  Carolina  I walked  two  miles  to  a rude  school  house  where  the  people 


INTRODUCTION. 


15 


The  Church  in  Rome  seems  to  have  sprung  up  in  this 
way.  If  the  statement  of  the  Jews  made  to  St.  Paul  as 
recorded  in  Acts  xxviii  be  true  there  could  not  have 
been  many  Jews  in  the  Church  of  Rome  at  that  time. 
The  early  literature  is  Greek  and  it  was  several  genera- 
tions before  the  Church  had  a Latin  at  its  head.  This 
had  an  influence  in  its  primitive  organization. 

When  the  Apostles  found  such  Churches  I suppose  that 
they  recognized  the  authority  of  the  officers.  Whether 
they  ordained  them  as  St.  Paul  had  ordained  the  Pres- 
byters in  Asia  Minor,  I can  find  no  evidence — probably 
they  did;  but  from  the  different  terms  of  organization 
used  among  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  it  came  to  pass  that 
there  were  two  names  for  the  Ministers  of  a Church. 
When  we  read  that  so  and  so  was  the  first  Bishop  of 
such  a Church  we  cannot  be  sure  that  he  was  an  officer 
appointed  by  an  Apostle.  He  may  have  been  an  Epis- 
copus  appointed  by  the  Ecclesia  itself.  In  a century  or 
two  the  complete  apostolic  ministry  was  generally  estab- 
lished; but  those  communities  of  Christians  were  recog- 
nized as  “ Churches  ” before  that,  and  because  they  were 
“ Churches  ” the  Apostle  would  “ impart  some  spiritual 
gift  to  the  end  that  they  might  be  established.”  Perhaps 
apostolic  orders  were  such  a “spiritual  gift,”  though 
Hort  says  not. 

assembled  for  worship.  As  there  was  no  Clergyman  in  charge,  and  the 
people  came  by  agreement  among  themselves,  the  school  mistress  suggested 
that  one  of  the  Mountaineers  who  could  read  and  sing  “ lead  the  meet- 
ing.” This  met  general  approval  and  so  the  service  was  held.  I was  told 
that  sometimes  a Baptist  preacher  happened  along  and  was  invited  to  " lead 
the  meeting." 


16 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION, 


In  St.  Paul’s  first  missionary  journey  he  gave  no 
organization  to  the  Jews  who  believed,  possibly  because 
they  were  already  members  of  a synagogue.  But  the 
believing  Gentiles,  the  acceptance  of  whom  by  the  Apostle 
in  the  Church  at  Antioch,  in  Pisidia,  so  enraged  the  Jews, 
were  not  organized  by  him  until  his  return  journey,  when 
he  and  Barnabas  “ ordained  them  Elders  in  every 
Church,”  either  by  his  own  volition  or  at  their  request,  i.  e,, 
he  organized  them  on  the  plan  of  a Jewish  synagogue. 
What  time  had  elapsed  since  their  conversion  we  do  not 
know;  but  during  the  interval,  long  or  short  (the  margin 
of  my  copy  of  the  Bible  says  two  years),  the  Christians 
seem  to  have  been  left  to  arrange  their  own  ecclesiastical 
affairs  like  our  “ Congregational  societies.”  But  they  are 
called  ” Churches,”  and  not  “ Christian  Bodies,”  or 
“ Christians  of  another  Communion.”  Then  “ Elders  ” 
were  “ appointed  ” and  they  were  still  “ Churches,”  So 
far  as  the  New  Testament  record  goes,  St.  Paul  never 
saw  them  again  but  left  them  “ Presbyterian.” 

The  number  of  Churches  soon  became  too  great  for  his 
personal  supervision.  In  a new  and  rapidly  growing  move- 
ment, where  no  inherited  custom  or  system  of  defined 
doctrines  could  direct  men’s  actions  or  thoughts,  disorders 
or  false  teachings,  must  have  been  frequent.  Therefore 
he  delegated,  on  at  least  two  occasions,  others  to  act  for 
him.  He  left  Titus  in  Crete  “ to  set  in  order  the  things 
that  were  wanting,  and  appoint  Elders  in  every  city.” 
Timothy,  also,  was  to  “ tarry  at  Ephesus  ” when  St.  Paul 
went  to  Macedonia,  to  see  that  certain  men  should  “ not 


INTRODUCTION. 


17 


teach  a different  doctrine.”  We  do  not  read 'that  St. 
Paul  was  asked  to  send  them  but  these  two  were  appointed 
to  act  in  the  place  of,  and  with  the  authority  of  the  Apostle 
himself,  and  were  substitutes,  and  in  a way,  “ successors 
of  the  Apostle  ” Paul  in  Crete  and  Ephesus.  It  has  been 
claimed  that  their  office  was  intended  to  be  temporary 
“ till  the  newly  appointed  Elders  (in  Crete)  should  have 
gained  some  really  effective  influence  under  the  difficult 
circumstances  of  their  new  office”;  and,  in  the  case  of 
Timothy,  who  was  appointed  by  “ the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery,”  either  Lycaonian  or  Ephesian, 
and  ” by  the  putting  on  of  ” St.  Paul’s  ” hands  ” (Com- 
pare Acts  xiii,  2 and  3),  to  take  the  place  of  Barnabas 
‘‘  in  the  temporary  mission  ” of  the  Apostles.  The  ques- 
tion whether  the  authority  conferred  was  “ permanent  ” 
or  “ temporary  ” does  not  obscure  the  fact  that  both 
Titus  and  Timothy  were  superior  officers  in  the  Church 
for  the  time  being.  There  may  be  a question  whether 
they  were  Presbyter-Bishops,/,  e..  Presbyters  commissioned 
to  exercise  apostolic  authority;  or,  having  received  further 
consecration,  Apostolic-Bishops.  In  any  case  they  were 
a new  kind  of  officer,  or  “ Bishops,”  as  we  understand 
the  word,  for  the  time  being,  and  the  Churches  in  Crete 
and  Ephesus  were,  so  far.  Episcopal. 

This  showed  the  trend  of  events  and  how  St.  Paul  met 
the  need.  Here  was  the  germ  of  the  Apostolic  Episco- 
pate in  the  Gentile  Churches.  It  was  by  no  means  the 
Diocesan  Episcopate  of  to-day,  but  it  contained  the  prin- 
ciple from  which  the  Diocesan  Episcopate  sprang.  And 


18 


fHE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CtiURCll  tJNlON. 


here  the  history  of  the  ecclesiastical  organization  as  given 
in  the  New  Testament  ends. 

We  have,  then,  Churches  with  three  different  kinds,  or 
degrees,  of  organization,  corresponding  generally  with  the 
present  condition  of  the  Protestant  Churches.  They  were 
contemporary  Churches  with  different  polities,  equally  par- 
ticipant of  the  Holy  Spirit,  all  in  communion  with  each 
other,  all  recognized  as  parts  of  the  body  of  Christ  by 
His  Holy  Apostles.  There  is  evidence  that  this  dissimi- 
larity in  organization  continued  till  the  time  of  Justin 
Martyr,  at  least  to  A.  D.  140,  and  probably  very  much 
longer. 

In  the  apostolic  age  the  offices  instituted  in  the  Eccle- 
sia  were,  as  it  appears  from  the  New  Testament,  the  crea- 
tion of  successive  experiences  and  changes  of  circumstance. 
We  do  not  read  that  our  Blessed  Lord  prescribed  any  or- 
dinances on  this  subject.  We  have  a brief  history  of 
what  some  of  the  Apostles  did  but  is  there  evidence  that 
they  intended  from  the  very  first  to  give  the  Church  an 
unchangeable  organization  or  law?  That  is  the  question 
before  us.  But  in  any  case  the  presumption  is  that  the 
acts  of  the  Apostles  are  examples,  or  guides  to  subse- 
quent generations  and  should  not  be  lightly  regarded  when 
they  can  be  followed. 

From  this  brief  statement,  taken  from  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  it  seems  to  follow  that  the  Congregational 
Churches  are  to  be  regarded  as  true  “ Churches  ” in  an 
apostolic  estimate;  that  Presbyterial  Churches  which 
have  transmitted  their  orders  “ by  the  laying  on  of  the 


INTRODUCTION. 


19 


hands  of  the  Presbytery  ” have  an  Apostolic  Ministry ; 
that  the  recognition  of  these  different  forms  of  Churches  by 
each  other  in  love  and  fellowship  resulted  in  a short  time 
in  a uniform  organization,  because  it  was  found  that  the 
dissimilarity  weakened  the  Church,  and  threatened  its 
extinction. 

In  studying  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  non- 
Episcopal  Churches  of  our  own  day  we  observe  that  in 
the  break  up  and  disintegration  of  the  Church  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  the  Christians  who  in  the  stress  of  the 
times  were  compelled  to  organize  their  Churches  without 
the  time  honored  and  venerated  Episcopate,  and  in  some 
cases  without  any  Clergyman  at  all,  reverted  to  the  simpler 
organizations  of  the  Church  in  its  beginnings.  It  was 
necessary  and  natural.  Circumstances  required  it.  Our 
Methodist  brethren,  whose  clergy  and  people  had  been 
accustomed  to  an  Episcopal  form  of  government,  natu- 
rally desired  to  continue  its  form  when  they  were  refused 
recognition  by  the  English  Church  and  it  is  said  that 
Wesley,  on  the  showing  of  Lord  Chancellor  King  that 
Presbyters  had  ordained  Bishops  in  the  early  Church, 
felt  authorized  to  ordain  Bishops  for  the  American  Meth- 
odist Church. 


20 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


III. 

THE  TRANSITION  FROM  APOSTOLIC  TO 
EPISCOPAL  OVERSIGHT. 

The  proposal  of  Bishop  Brown  to  offer  to 
extend  the  Episcopate  to  the  Churches  which  are 
without  it  involves  two  questions:  First,  is  the 
Episcopate  in  its  origin  and  character  such  that  the  Epis- 
copal Church  is  at  liberty  to  offer  to  impart  it  to  Churches 
which  are  without  it?  Second,  is  it  necessary  or  desirable 
for  those  Churches  to  accept  it? 

The  second  question  those  Churches  must  answer  for 
themselves.  The  first  is  the  one  that  appertains  to  us  and 
at  this  point  investigation  is  important. 

One  may  well  shrink  from  a task  which  has  engaged 
the  best  scholarship  of  many  generations  and  which  is  yet 
far  from  completion.  But  there  has  been  a change  in  the 
religious  mind  towards  toleration;  fuller  consideration  is 
now  given  to  the  authorities  and  arguments  of  those 
who  differ  from  us,  and  we  have  also  some  scant  addition 
to  our  knowledge  from  newly  discovered  documents. 
Above  all,  the  new  method  of  historic  inquiry,  which  seeks 
to  know  what  the  documents  and  the  terms  used  in  them 
meant  to  those  to  whom  they  were  written,  instead  of  rest- 


INTRODUCTION. 


21 


ing  upon  what  they  have  come  to  mean  in  our  day^  may 
lead  one  to  venture  a little  way  into  the  wilderness  of  early 
ecclesiastical  history  in  search  of  facts  and  principles 
which  may  extricate  us  from  the  impasse  of  our  Denomi- 
national differences.  Let  us  see  what  the  fourth  side  of 
“ the  Quadrilateral  ” really  involves. 

There  is  not,  to  my  mind,  sufficient  evidence  that  in 
the  year  70  A.  D.  there  was  what  we  now  understand  by 
a diocesan  Episcopal  government  in  all  the  Churches,  i.  e., 
that  all  the  Churches  had  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons. 
All  the  Apostles  except  St.  John  were  dead  and  we  read 
in  contemporary  documents  i.  e.,  in  the  New  Testament, 
of  only  two  orders  in  the  Ministry  permanently  insti- 
tuted or  recognized  by  the  Apostles,  namely.  Presbyters, 
or  Bishops,  and  Deacons.  It  may  be  asserted  that  Bishops 
as  a separate  order  had  been  appointed  in  some  of  the 
Churches  in  Asia,  but  I have  found  no  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  their  appointment  at  that  time  in  Europe. 

In  the  course  of  a hundred  years  or  a little  more,  we 
find  the  institution  practically  universal,  and  the  question 
before  us  is.  How  did  this  come  about?  The  cause  of  the 
change  in  Church  government,  if  there  was  a change, 
should  not  be  difficult  to  discover;  but  to  trace  the  succes- 
sive steps  by  which  it  was  effected  has  baffled  the  efforts  of 
the  most  scholarly.  The  following  view  is  offered  with 
such  misgivings  as  are  inevitable. 

^Tertullian:  Praesidenf  probali  quique  Seniores,  honorem  non  pretlis, 
sed  testimonio  adepti.  Bingham  translates  it  thus:  “The  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  who  preside  over  us  are  advanced  to  that  honor  only  by  public 
testimony.” 


22 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Our  Lord  had  committed  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  founding  of  His  Church  to  the  Apostles  whom  He 
had  chosen,  and  every  act  of  theirs,  especially  at  the 
commencement  of  their  work,  is  worthy  of  the  most  care- 
ful examination  and  study.  At  the  very  beginning  of  their 
work  we  are  met  by  a fact  of  the  utmost  significance. 
We  are  told  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  that  between  the  Ascension  of  our  Blessed  Lord 
and  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  de- 
scended upon  the  disciples,  the  “ hundred  and  twenty  ” 
at  the  instance  of  St.  Peter  elected  Matthias  to  be  an 
Apostle  in  the  place  of  the  traitor  Judas  and  to  take  his 
“ Bishopric.”  The  qualification  for  this  office  was  a con- 
tinuous association  with  the  Apostles  or  disciples  all  the 
time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  them, 
beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John  unto  that  same  day 
that  the  Lord  ascended.  The  gap  in  the  apostolic  ranks 
must  be  filled  in  order  that  there  might  be  twelve  chosen 
witnesses  of  the  Resurrection.  They  must  be  men  whose 
personal  knowledge  of  Jesus  was  such  that  they  could  not 
be  mistaken  about  His  rising  from  the  dead,  for  upon  this 
fact  the  Church,  the  “ Kingdom  not  of  this  world  ” but 
of  the  world  unseen,  was  to  be  built.  This  election  of  an 
Apostle  was  not  made  by  the  Eleven,  but  by  the  disciples, 
through  whom  St.  Peter  seems  to  have  believed  that  the 
Lord  would  make  known  His  will.  Matthias,  was,  then, 
the  official  representative  of  the  disciples  to  testify  to  the 
fact  of  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  which  they 
believed. 


INTRODUCTION. 


23 


This  occurred  before  the  publication  of  the  Gospel  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  and 
the  Church  entered  upon  her  mission  of  blessing.  It  was 
a special  appointment  for  a special  need  and  it  was  made 
not  by  the  Apostles  but  by  the  disciples.  After  the  spread 
of  the  Gospel  we  do  not  read  that  there  was  a further 
filling  up  of  the  depleted  ranks  of  the  Twelve.  When 
Herod  “ killed  James  the  brother  of  John  with  the 
sword  ” (Acts  xii,  2)  we  have  no  record  that  the  martyr’s 
place  was  filled  in  the  apostolic  ranks.  The  Resurrection 
was  then  proclaimed  by  the  whole  Church  of  thousands 
of  believers.  So  it  has  been  ever  since.  The  date  of 
every  letter,  bill,  or  legal  document  in  Christendom  pro- 
claims it — Anno  Domino  is  written  upon  them  all.  The 
sovereignty  of  Him  who  rose  from  the  dead,  to  whom 
“ all  power  is  given  in  heaven  and  in  earth,”  is  now  sub- 
scribed to  millions  of  times  every  day  throughout  the 
world. 

Now  it  seems  proper  that  the  Church  which  depends  for 
the  justification  of  its  existence  upon  the  fact  of  the  Resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  should  have  its  official  representa- 
tives to  testify  to  it.  St.  Peter  would  have  the  Disciples, 
before  Pentecost,  choose  the  man,  and  being  chosen  he 
was  numbered  with  the  Eleven  Apostles  who  had  been 
appointed  by  our  Lord  Himself.  The  act  of  the  hundred 
and  twenty  disciples  in  choosing  at  the  instance  of  St. 
Peter,  the  highest  officer  known  in  the  Church — than 
whom  no  higher  can  be  found  upon  earth — seems  to  imply 
that  the  Church  was  recognized  as  the  agent  of  the  Lord 


24 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


to  do  after  His  departure  what  He  Himself  had  done 
while  on  earth.  In  the  prayer  for  His  guidance  in  the 
election  of  Matthias  the  disciples  acknowledged  their 
power  and  responsibility  and  besought  Him  to  enable 
them  to  act  according  to  His  will.  We  do  not  read  that 
the  Apostles  “ consecrated  ” Matthias.  The  election  by 
the  people  sufficed.  But  besides  The  Twelve  we  read  in 
the  New  Testament  of  many  other  “ Apostles  ” who  had 
not  seen  the  Lord  in  the  flesh.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us 
to  inquire  into  the  qualifications  of  Barnabas,  Silas,  Tim- 
othy, and  others  for  the  apostleship,  as  the  term  “ Apos- 
tle ” applied  to  them,  has  a wider  signification  than  when 
applied  to  those  whom  our  Lord  had  chosen.  In  the  case 
of  St.  Paul  and  Barnabas,  the  Prophets  and  Teachers  at 
Antioch  laid  their  hands  on  them  and  they  were  recog- 
nized as  Apostles  by  St.  Peter,  St.  John  and  St.  James 
at  Jerusalem.  St.  Timothy  was  commissioned  by  the 
“ Presbytery  ” and  by  St.  Paul,  and  no  doubt  the  others 
were  appointed  in  some  formal  way. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Church  was  formed  has  its 
bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue.  It  was  not  imposed 
upon  men  by  civil  authority  as  a state  religion,  or  by  divine 
authority  as  a race  religion.  The  Apostles  gathered  men 
into  a Church,  as  our  Lord  Himself  had  gathered  them 
together,  one  by  one,  regardless  of  race,  or  affinities  or 
previous  religious  status.  They  came  of  their  own  choice 
and  they  formed  a voluntary  society.  Our  Lord  recog- 
nized the  fact,  taught  at  the  beginning  of  the  Scriptures, 
of  the  direct  relation  of  the  individual  soul  to  God.  It 


INTRODUCTION. 


25 


was  so  in  the  case  of  Adam,  and  the  fact  is  further  em- 
phasized in  the  Scriptures  by  constantly  showing  us  that 
this  personal  relationship  continued  with  Enoch,  Noah, 
the  Patriarchs,  and  a long  line  of  worthies  enumerated 
on  their  pages,  and  the  institutions  of  Family,  State  and 
Church  among  men  were  helps-meei  to  aid  them  in  this 
relationship.  This  primary  fact  became  obscured  by  the 
institutions  of  society  which  in  our  Lord’s  day  treated  the 
individual  as  a mere  constituent  atom  of  a sacred  whole 
and  as  existing  solely  for  the  welfare  of  the  State  or  the 
Church.  The  primal  truth  that  God  cared  for  the  Ark 
because  Noah  and  his  family  were  in  it  is  always  in 
danger  of  being  forgotten;  and  by  upholding  institutions 
too  strenuously  and  making  too  much  of  them,  those 
charged  with  the  care  of  the  Church  may  come  to  act  as 
if  the  people  had  been  saved,  not  because  God  cared  for 
them  but  only  because  the  Ark  was  precious  in  His  sight. 
Had  not  the  Jewish  Church  fallen  into  this  error  in  our 
Lord’s  day?  This  old  truth  of  a man’s  personal  rela- 
tionship to  God  was  restored  by  our  Lord,  and  His 
Church  was  built  for  its  realization.  He  called  men  to 
His  service  one  by  one,  regardless  of  tribe,  or  class,  or 
race,  or  family.  He  healed  them  of  their  infirmities  by  His 
personal  touch.  He  taught  that  the  individual  man  holds 
personal  communication  with  God  and  is  personally  re- 
sponsible to  Him,  and  that  this  responsibility  cannot  be 
escaped  even  if  it  cost  him  his  life ; and  so,  too,  a man  may 
receive  pardon  from  God  even  though  he  be  anathema- 
tized by  man.  The  true  kingdom  of  God  on  earth  so 


26 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


long  and  ardently  expected,  is  based  upon  this  principle 
of  the  individual’s  recognition  of  his  personal  relationship 
to  the  Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  and  all  its  institu- 
tions depend  upon  and  are  subordinate  to  it.  The  Mes- 
siah, the  “ great  King,”  calls  Himself  “ The  Son  of 
Man.”  The  Kingdom  is  revealed  as  a universal  com- 
monwealth— a great  Democracy — whose  officers  are  ap- 
pointed for  service  and  not  lordship.  As  the  late  Bishop 
Littlejohn  has  said  “ the  Church  is  governed  by  the  whole 
body  of  the  people.” 

The  Apostles  gathered  men  together  by  preaching  the 
Resurrection  of  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  and  organization 
followed.  We  have  an  account  of  the  beginnings  of  the 
Church  in  Jerusalem  under  the  care  of  the  Apostles. 
While  they  were  able  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  believers 
by  their  personal  oversight  no  question  arose;  but  soon 
they  were  overburdened  by  the  increasing  demands  of 
administration  and  their  more  sacred  work  was  interfered 
with.  The  people  murmured  at  a neglect.  A change  of 
circumstances  called  for  new  officers  to  meet  a need  which 
had  developed.  We  observe  the  caution  of  the  Apostles. 
They  declined  administrative  work  and  proposed  that  the 
members  of  the  Church  should  select  the  men  whom  they 
desired  to  serve  them  and  they  (the  Apostles)  would  “ ap- 
point ” them  “ over  this  business.”  The  Church,  then, 
selected  the  men  who  were  to  be  the  new  officers, 
(Deacons)  and  the  Apostles,  whose  power  was  not 
doubted  by  themselves  nor  questioned  by  the  Church 
gave  the  Deacons  their  commission.  It  is  hardly  necessary 


INTRODUCTION. 


27 


to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Apostles  clearly 
treated  and  regarded  the  power  committed  to  them  by 
our  Lord  not  as  an  exclusive  personal  asset  which  could 
be  pushed  to  overlordship,  but  as  a stewardship  of  their 
Master  for  the  service  of  the  Church,  and  they  recognized 
the  “ Brethren  ” as  participants  in  His  grace  and  fellow 
citizens  in  the  household  of  faith.  If  they  did  not  exercise 
their  power  to  organize  the  Church  they  left  it  to  the 
Church  itself  to  determine  the  organization. 

The  fact  that  the  Gospel  was  first  preached  to  the  Jews 
has  a very  important  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  organi- 
zation of  the  early  Church,  for  from  their  organization  of 
the  synagogues  we  derived  our  “ Presbyter  ” and  the  status 
and  duties  of  the  early  Gentile  “ Bishops  ” were  largely 
determined  by  those  of  the  Presbyters  of  the  Jewish 
Christians.  In  Row’s  book  on  “The  Jesus  of  the  Evan- 
gelists,” Ch.  xi,  I find  the  following  account  of  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Jews  in  the  Empire  and  its  bearing  on  the 
spread  of  the  Gospel : 

“ While  the  nucleus  of  the  Jewish  nation  was  in  Pales- 
tine the  race  was  widely  dispersed  both  in  the  Eastern  and 
Western  worlds.  We  can  hardly  overestimate  the  im- 
portance of  this  as  a preparation  for  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel.  Whenever  its  missionaries  appeared,  they  found 
scarcely  a city  of  any  size  in  the  Roman  Empire  in  which 
a congregation  of  Jews  had  not  been  settled  for  a consid- 
erable time.  The  very  peculiarities  of  the  race  had  called 
attention  to  the  religion  which  had  originated  with  them. 
All  the  evidence  of  history  shows  that  the  Jew  had  made 


28  THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 

I-  ' 

a deep  impression  on  the  public  mind.  He  had  made 
numerous  converts;  but  his  influence  extended  far  beyond 
the  number  of  those  who  actually  embraced  his  religion. 

“ Wherever  Judaism  had  been  domiciled  for  a consid- 
erable time  the  Apostles  found  a large  number  of  religious 
men  who,  while  they  had  not  adopted  the  peculiarities  of 
Judaism,  were  believers  in  its  fundamental  truths.  These 
possessed  a more  liberal  cast  of  mind  than  the  Jew  proper, 
and  united  the  nobler  aspects  of  both  Judaism  and  Gen- 
tilism.  Among  them  the  Apostles  found  a numerous 
body  of  men  prepared  for  the  reception  of  Christianity. 
A majority  of  the  members  of  the  early  Churches  were 
either  Jews,  or  persons  of  this  description.” 

A strong  Jewish  element  was  at  the  very  beginning  in- 
fused into  the  organization  of  the  Church;  not,  however, 
through  the  Priesthood  of  the  Temple  divinely  appointed 
through  Moses  to  prepare  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord, 
but  through  the  more  democratic  organization  of  the 
synagogue  which  was  not  an  institution  of  the  Mosaic  law. 

To  the  Jewish  convert  the  officers  of  the  new  Christian 
churches  filled  the  place  of  the  time-honored  Elders  or 
Presbyters  of  the  Synagogue;  to  the  Gentile  Christian  on 
the  other  hand  they  were  officers,  or  Episcopi  of  the 
assembly,  congregation,  or  meeting.  The  bringing  to- 
gether of  the  Jew  and  Gentile  into  one  Ecclesia,  or  Church, 
made  the  terms  synonymous  and  kept  them  both  in  use 
for  a considerable  time.  Where  the  Jewish  element  pre- 
vailed, as  in  Asia  Minor  at  the  beginning.  Presbyters  had 
the  precedence,  but  by  the  great  reversion  of  the  Jews  a 


INTRODUCTION. 


29 


generation  afterwards  the  Greeks  were  left  in  control  and 
the  Presbyter  lost  prestige  which  passed  over  to  the 
Bishop. 

From  the  New  Testament  and  early  authors  we  gather 
that  during  the  era  of  apostolic  government  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  were  identical  (at  least  both  terms  are  used 
for  the  same  officers)  ; and  that  shortly  after  the  death 
of  St.  John  the  Bishops  appear  as  a different  order  from 
the  Presbyters.  It  is  proposed  to  inquire  why  this  new 
order  of  officers  was  created ; by  what  authority  they  were 
appointed,  and  thus  seek  to  discover  whether  they  were 
regarded  by  the  Apostles  as  their  “ successors  ” and  as 
indispensable  to  the  Church’s  existence,  or  were  appointed 
whether  by  apostolical,  or  ecclesiastical  authority,  rather 
for  its  “ better  government  and  administration  ” as  our 
Ordinal  declares.  In  either  case  they  are  recognized  as 
divinely  ordered  and  are  not  to  be  ignored  in  Church  or- 
ganization, except  for  very  grave  reasons. 

The  Jewish  churches  which  were  numerous  in  the 
early  days,  were  modelled  after  the  synagogue  to  which 
the  members  were  accustomed,  and  their  officers  are  called 
Presbyters  or  Elders;  and  they  were,  in  some  cases  at 
least,  ordained  by  the  Apostles  as  officers  of  the  Churches. 
When  we  come  to  the  Gentiles,  the  Ecclesia,  apparently, 
is  not  consciously  modelled  on  the  plan  of  the  synagogue, 
but  follows  the  customary  form  of  voluntary  associations 
in  the  Empire.  In  each  case  the  organization  develops 
on  line;s  familiar  to  the  people,  At  Philippi,  in  Crete,  and 


30 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


in  Asia  Minor,  we  find  “ Bishops  ” instead  of  “ Presby- 
ters.” (Phil,  i,  1 ; I Tim.  iii,  1,2;  Acts  xx,  28.) 

But  these  officers,  though  bearing  different  names,  dis- 
charged practically  the  same  functions  as  Presbyters  in 
the  Jewish  Ecclesia,  and  the  names  are  used  in  the  New 
Testament  interchangeably.  We  read  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment of  “ Bishops  and  Deacons  ” but  not  of  “ Bishops 
and  Elders.”  If  Bishops  had  already  been  appointed  by 
the  several  Ecclesiae  themselves,  as  suggested  above,  they 
were,  I think,  recognized  (and  probably  ordained)  by  the 
Apostles  on  an  apostolic  visitation,  the  same  as  were  the 
Presbyters  in  the  Jewish-Christian.  Synagogues.  When 
the  Apostles  were  scattered  from  Jerusalem  the  Elders, 
or  “Presbyters,”  were  left  in  charge  there;  at  Philippi, 
the  “ Bishops.”  (Acts  xi.,  30;  Phil.  i.  1 .)  Official  com- 
munications were  sent  to  the  Presbyters  at  Jerusalem,  and 
with  St.  James  they  received  St.  Paul  on  his  return  from 
his  missionary  journey.  (Acts  xxi,  18.)  They  appar- 
ently had  charge  of  their  several  Churches;  for  the  Apos- 
tle was  not  a local  nor  administrative  officer  but  an  “ Em- 
bassador of  Christ”  to  the  world  at  large.  (2  Cor.  v,  20.) 
In  both  cases  the  Ministers,  though  probably  elected  by 
the  Churches,  may,  so  far,  be  traced  to  apostolic  appoint- 
ment, direction,  or  approval.  These  officers.  Presbyters 
or  Bishops,  seemed  to  have  administered  discipline. 
(Titus  i,  5 and  7,  uses  the  first  term  in  the  5th  verse,  and 
the  second  in  the  7th.) 

St.  Paul  directs  the  Corinthian  church  to  correct  an 


INTRODUCTION. 


31 


offender,  and  it  is  done  in  a very  drastic  manner  by  the 
officers  of  the  Church  who  were  Presbyters. 

It  also  appears  probable  that  the  Presbyters  or  Bishops 
had  the  power  to  ordain.  ( I Tim.  iv,  1 4,  “ With  the 
laying  on  of  hands  of  the  Presbytery.”  Compare  Acts 
vi,  6.  “They  [the  Apostles]  laid  their  hands  on 
them.”)  The  claim  that  the  “ Presbyters  ” who  ordained 
Timothy  must  have  been  Apostolic  Bishops,  because  they 
ordained  him,  assumes  the  very  question  at  issue  and  reads 
into  the  Scriptures  what  we  find  commanded  only  by  sub- 
sequent ecclesiastical  action.  It  does  not  follow  that  be- 
cause the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  requires  every 
State  in  the  Union  to  have  a Republican  form  of  govern- 
ment that  all  the  Colonies  were  Republican  in  form  pre- 
viously. We  may  gather  from  the  acts  of  the  councils 
of  Nice,  Carthage,  and  Chalcedon,  to  name  no  others, 
that  it  required  severe  and  long-continued  action  to  pre- 
vent the  Presbyters  from  ordaining;  and  finally  peace  was 
effected  by  the  compromise  of  permitting  the  Presbyters 
to  join  with  the  Bishop  in  the  laying  on  of  hands.  “ All 
the  Presbyters  who  are  present  may  lay  their  hands 
equally  with,  or  next  to,  the  hand  of  the  Bishop  on  the 
head  of  him”*  (who  is  ordained).  This  permission  or 
right  is  still  enjoyed  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

If  the  Churches  had  remained  Jewish  the  Synagogue 
organization  among  those  accustomed  to  it  might  have 
sufficed,  but  where  it  became  preponderantly  Greek  other 


* Qun.  Carth.  4,  canok  3. 


32 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


elements  in  the  Ecclesiae  called  for  a less  provincial  mode 
of  government  and  administration. 

It  is  generally  conceded  by  the  later  writers  of  Church 
History  that  there  were  at  first  no  Dioceses,  or  diocesan 
Bishops,  as  Bingham  believed.  The  individual  Ecclesiae 
were  in  charge  of  a council  of  Elders  or  Bishops  under 
the  general  supervision  of  the  Apostles  for  a generation 
or  more.  The  actual  government  was  practically  Pres- 
byterian or  Congregational.  Then,  after  the  death  of 
the  Apostles,  in  a few  generations,  quite  a new  order  of 
officers  appears  in  control.  They  bear  an  old  name  and 
it  is  claimed  that  they  succeeded  the  Apostles  and  had 
their  authority.  But  we  cannot  identify  them  with  either 
Apostles  or  Presbyters.  They  fill  an  office  which  had 
not  been  known  before,  some  of  the  powers  of  which  had 
been  exercised  only  by  the  Apostles  while  others  had 
been  enjoyed  by  the  former  Bishops  or  Presbyters. 

Now  that  the  government  of  the  whole  Church,  or  even 
a large  portion  of  it,  should  undergo  a radical  change  with 
hardly  a trace  of  opposition,  may  well  excite  astonishment. 
This  absence  of  any  evidence  of  resistance  affords,  it  is 
claimed,  a strong  argument  in  favor  of  the  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession as  it  is  usually  taught.  And  yet  there  may  be 
reasons  why,  if  such  a change  was  made,  the  opposition  to 
it  was  small.  It  does  not  follow  that  there  was  no  change 
made;  for  evidence  of  reluctance  to  submit  to  it,  or  some 
of  the  evidence,  if  there  was  reluctance,  is  likely  to  have 
perished  or  to  have  been  destroyed.  The  successful  party 
would  have  no  interest  in  preserving  documeots  which 


INTRODUCTION. 


33 


were  opposed  to  it,  and  when  an  apostolic  claim  for  the 
establishment  of  the  later  Episcopate  was  put  forth,  it 
would  be  desirable  to  get  rid  of  any  evidence  which  im- 
peached the  claim.  But  there  are  indications  of  resist- 
ance; perhaps  the  dearth  of  evidence  itself,  on  both  sides, 
for  the  period  of  more  than  a generation  during  which  the 
transformation  took  place — such  a dearth  of  contempo- 
rary information  as  we  find  nowhere  else  in  the  History 
of  the  Church — may  give  rise  to  a suspicion  of  the  dis- 
appearance of  documents  through  neglect  or  interest. 
Unhappily  the  destruction  and  fabrication  of  documents  is 
not  unknown  in  Church  history.  The  canons  of  the  early 
councils  deal  so  largely  with  the  Episcopal  polity  and 
its  establishment  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  it  was 
recognized  and  received  everywhere  as  delivered  by  the 
Apostles  from  the  very  first  as  a necessary  part,  still  less 
as  of  the  substance,  of  the  Church.  Drastic  legislation  is 
not  needed  to  enforce  what  is  commonly  recognized  as 
the  ordinary  form  of  government.  So  I am  disposed  to 
think  that  the  whole  question  of  Church  government  was 
thoroughly  discussed  and  settled  during  the  first  centuries 
of  Christianity,  and  to  a certain  degree  we  are  to-day 
threshing  over  old  straw.  The  recovery  of  the  Didache  a 
few  years  ago  leads  us  to  hope  that  other  discoveries 
may  throw  additional  light  on  this  most  interesting  period 
of  Church  history. 

Such  a change  could  not  have  been  instantaneously 
universal  and  therefore  the  term  Bishop  must  have  been 
ambiguous  for  some  years.  While  it  is  developing  into 


34 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


new  dignity  we  cannot  deteraiine  when  we  read,  e.  g.,  in 
later  writers  that  “ Clement  was  Bishop  of  Rome  ” 
whether  he  was  a primitive,  i,  e..  Congregational,  or  a 
Presbyter-Bishop,  or  an  apostolic  Bishop.  What  we 
need  is  contemporary  evidence;  and  unfortunately  we 
have  very  little.  The  Roman  Clement,  Ignatius,  Poly- 
carp, Barnabas  and  Hermas  are  about  all  our  contem- 
porary authors. 

While  the  Apostles  were  alive  all  questions  of  dispute, 
all  dissensions  and  questionable  doctrines,  could  be,  as 
I have  said,  and  were,  referred  to  the  Apostles  them- 
selves. We  have  seen  that  St.  Paul  (who  was  not  of  the 
Twelve),  delegated  Timothy  and  Titus  to  act  for  him 
in  Ephesus  and  Crete.  The  state  of  affairs  which  called 
for  such  action  must  have  been  continually  arising,  and 
the  Presbyters  of  the  several  Churches  were  unable  to 
meet  the  need  because  they  were  officers  only  of  individ- 
ual Ecclesiae  who  formed  a council  apparently  of  equals. 
If  I understand  St.  Clement’s  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
the  Church  in  that  city  had  deposed  some  of  the  Pres- 
byters, and  St.  Clement  who  claims  to  be  a Presbyter, 
but  not  an  apostolic  Bishop,  warmly  remonstrates.  It 
may  be  that  as  the  Corinthians  were  Greeks  they  were 
only  exercising  their  recognized  right  of  control  over  their 
own  officers,  retiring  them  to  appoint  more  gifted  men  in 
their  places;  while  Clement  thought  the  officers  of  the 
Church  like  the  State  officers  should  be  permanent.  At 
any  rate,  it  was  evident  that  some  stronger  organization 
in  the  Ecclesiee  than  the  body  of  local  Presbyters  would 


INTRODUCTION. 


35 


be  required  to  maintain  sound  doctrine  and  to  preserve 
the  peace  and  good  order  of  the  Church  and  to  take  the 
place  of  the  Apostles  after  their  decease. 

We  learn  from  the  New  Testament  that  St.  James  had 
been  placed  over  the  Church  in  Jerusalem.  We  have 
statements  elsewhere  that  St.  Peter  had  appointed  Euodus 
over  the  Jewish  congregations  at  Antioch,  and  that  he 
appointed  a Bishop  in  Caesarea.  At  the  same  time 
there  are  rumors  that  St.  Paul  had  appointed  another  to 
be  Bishop  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch.  There  are  rumors 
also  of  duplicate  Bishops  of  apostolic  order  in  Rome.  I 
can  only  understand  the  conflicting  statements  by  constru- 
ing these  as  appointments  to  meet  local  or  temporary  exi- 
gencies, like  the  appointments  of  Sts.  Timothy  and  Titus 
to  Ephesus  and  Crete,  and  it  was  not  until  after  A.  D. 
70  that  a uniform  and  general  Episcopal  organization 
was  undertaken. 

Authorities  should  be  given  for  historic  statements. 
Now  the  fact  that  while  all  the  Churches  were  in  com- 
munion with  each  other  in  the  early  days,  quotations  are 
made  from  contemporary  writers  in  support  of  the  Con- 
gregational, Presbyterial,  Episcopal,  and  Papal  polities 
seems  to  show  that  there  was  no  one  uniform  settled  polity 
anywhere  in  the  first  century,  and  even  later,  in  some 
parts.  I quote  only  what  little  seems  to  me  sufficient  to 
indicate  how,  under  the  Providence  of  God,  the  actual 
result  was  reached  of  a uniform  Episcopal  regime. 

Until  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  that  city  was  the  center  of 
Church  unity.  In  certain  parts  of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor, 


36 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


it  is  claimed,  the  Episcopate  had  already  been  instituted 
by  the  Apostles.  But  it  was  especially  to  St.  John,  as 
the  only  surviving  Apostle,  that  the  need  of  officers  who 
should  exercise  the  authority  which  the  Apostles  had  exer- 
cised when  they  were  alive,  appeared  most  imperative; 
and  Tertullian  (Adversus  Marcionem  Bk.  iv.  Cap.  5), 
tells  us  “ The  Order  of  Bishops  when  traced  to  its  origin 
will  rest  on  St.  John  as  its  author.”  The  statement 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Quis  Dives  Salvetur)  is  as 
follows : 

‘‘  For  when,  the  tyrant  being  dead,  he  (St.  John)  re- 
turned from  the  Isle  of  Patmos  to  Ephesus,  he  departed 
on  invitation  to  the  neighboring  territories  of  the  nations, 
(or  Gentiles)  to  appoint  Bishops  in  one  place,  to  set  in 
order  whole  Churches  in  another,  and,  in  a third,  to  ordain 
some  one  of  those  indicated  by  the  Spirit.”  Other 
authorities  endorse  the  testimony  of  Tertullian  and  Clem- 
ent. These  definite  statements  of  the  two  fathers  relate 
to  what  St.  John  did  after  his  return  from  exile  in  the 
Island  of  Patmos  where  he  had  received  the  Revelation. 
It  has  been  conjectured  that  the  Holy  Orders  of  the 
Church  took  form  in  his  mind  in  consequence  of  that  vision, 
and  where  opportunity  was  afforded  he  instituted  the  order 
of  Bishops  over  individual  Churches  to  secure  the  ortho- 
doxy, peace  and  good  order  of  the  Churches  after  he 
should  have  passed  away.  Tertullian  and  Clement  evi- 
dently intend  to  have  it  understood  that  by  the  action  of  St. 
John  a new  class  of  Church  officers  was  created  under 
the  old  name  of  Bishops.  There  may  be  a question 


INTRODUCTION. 


37 


whether  the  testimony  of  these  Fathers  is  conclusive. 
They  lived  a hundred  years  after  the  events  of  which 
they  write  and  during  that  time  the  Bishops  had 
been  strengthening  their  position  by  the  exercise  of 
their  authority.  No  element  of  strength  could  be 
greater  than  the  apostolical  institution  of  their  order 
and  there  was  a strong  temptation  to  claim  such 
institution.  This  is  granted.  And  it  is  still  further 
agreed  that  the  testimony  of  Tertullian  and  Clement 
would  have  been  stronger  if  St.  Ignatius  (A.  D.  107) 
who  lived  in  the  period  when  St.  John  is  reported  to  have 
instituted  Bishops  had  claimed  apostolic  authority  for 
the  office  which  he  extols.  This  he  does  not  seem  to  do, 
not  even  claiming  it  for  himself.  Possibly  the  fact  of 
St.  John’s  institution  of  Bishops  and  St.  Ignatius’  own 
place  among  them  was  so  well  known  that  it  needed  no 
mention.  Unless  additional  evidence  is  forthcoming  a 
doubt  must  remain,  but  on  the  whole  the  statements  of 
our  two  authors  have  incidental,  if  not  direct,  corrobora- 
tion, and  the  absence  of  any  claim  to  universal,  exclusive, 
and  perpetual  authority  for  the  order  of  Bishops  as  “ Suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles,”  allows  for  the  continued  varia- 
tions in  Church  government  which  are  met  in  various 
places  for  a long  time  after  their  day,  and  their  statement 
may  be  accepted  as  probably  true. 

But  here  a question.  Were  the  “ Angels  ” of  the 
Churches  in  the  Revelation,  if  they  were  indeed  persons. 
Presbyters,  or  Presbyter-Bishops?  And  were  they  made 


38 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


apostolic  Bishops  afterwards?  Or  were  they  ever 
Bishops  at  all  as  has  been  claimed? 

As  this  is  the  point  where  Bishops,  in  our  understanding 
of  the  word,  emerge  into  the  clear  light  of  history  it  is 
especially  important  to  look  closely  in  order  to  make 
up  our  minds  whether  the  Episcopate  does,  and  was  in- 
tended to  perpetuate  the  apostolic  order.  The  state- 
ments of  Tertullian  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  that  St. 
John  established  Bishops  over  Churches  in  Asia  Minor, 
are  late  but  positive.  Their  words  have  been  read  into 
the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  not  only  the  interval  between 
the  death  of  St.  John  (about  100  A.  D.)  and  their  own 
day  (about  200  A.  D.)  but  also  into  the  previous  history 
of  the  Church.  Yet  the  fact  that  neither  St.  Ignatius 
nor  St.  Polycarp  claims  apostolic  authority,  nor  appears 
to  know  anything  about  such  action  by  St.  John,  weakens 
the  statements.  Ignatius,  who  wrote  a few  years  after 
the  Apostle’s  death  and  who  vehemently  insists  upon  the 
authority  of  Bishops,  makes  no  mention  of  any  such 
action  by  St.  John,  although  no  argument  could  have 
served  his  purpose  better  had  it  been  true.  In  his  letter 
to  St.  Clement,  of  Rome,  he  makes  no  mention  of  it 
which  is  accounted  for  if  they  at  Rome  knew  nothing  of 
such  an  Episcopate.  The  statements  of  the  two  fathers 
may  represent  a growing  tradition  which  had  some  foun- 
dation. While  it  is  true  that  the  most  powerful  interests 
in  the  Church  were  enlisted  in  its  favor  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  has  no  basis  in  fact.  Yet  when  one  reads  St. 
Clement’s  treatise  on  Quis  Dives  Salvetur  its  language 


INTRODUCTION. 


39 


seems  to  imply  that  St.  John  intended,  not  to  establish  a 
new  order  of  the  Christian  ministry  which  had  not  been 
known  before,  but  rather  to  give  his  sanction  and  blessing 
to  the  Churches,  set  in  order  what  was  confused  and  or- 
dain their  clergy  for  them.  It  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 
“ proven  ” that  the  Episcopate  of  subsequent  times  was 
instituted  by  St.  John,  or  by  any  other  Apostle.  So, 
whether  it  be  true  or  not — God  only  knows — it  cannot 
justly  serve  as  a basis  for  the  extreme  claims  of  the  Jure 
Divino  theory  of  the  Episcopate.  They  need  a more  sub- 
stantial basis  than  a “ perhaps.” 

While  it  is  evident  from  the  authors  quoted  that  the 
” Bishops  ” ordained  by  St.  John  after  his  return  from 
Patm.os  were  placed  in  a position  superior  to  that  of  those 
ordained  by  him  before  the  exile  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  both  used  for  the 
same  officer  in  the  Churches  and  the  ordination  of  an 
Elder  was  also  the  ordination  of  a Bishop.  From  I Tim. 
V,  1 7,  we  learn  that  there  were  two  kinds  of  service  ren- 
dered by  Elders ; and  those  who  excelled  in  teaching  and 
preaching  were  to  be  “reckoned  worthy  of  double  honor.” 
The  other  service  may  have  been  that  of  administration 
when  the  Elder  was  acting  as  Bishop.  Until  the  ordina- 
tions spoken  of  by  Tertullian  and  Clement  we  read  only 
of  the  ordination  of  Elders.  By  Tertullian’s  day  the  dif- 
ference in  the  nature  of  the  services  rendered  had  produced 
a difference  in  Orders.  Instead  of  Elders  who  labored  in 
administration  and  supervision  we  have  Bishops;  while 
those  who  labored  in  word  and  doctrine  continued  to  be 


40 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


called  Elders  or  Presbyters.  Ignatius  was,  as  he  calls  him- 
self, a Presbyter  by  Orders;  but  as  the  supervisor  or 
ruler  of  a Church  he  was  also  a Bishop  in  the  general 
sense  of  the  word.  It  is  probable  that  the  work  of  admin- 
istration grew  in  importance  as  the  congregations  increased 
in  membership  and  in  numbers.  As  the  Elders  who  acted 
as  Bishops  kept  the  rolls  and  had  charge  of  the  corres- 
pondence with  other  Churches  the  maintenance  of  order 
and  brotherly  relations  was  largely  in  their  hands  and  the 
Presbyter-Bishop’s  responsibilities  grew  accordingly.  In 
the  absence  of  contemporary  evidence  we  can  only  con- 
jecture the  course  of  events  and  I venture  the  following 
suggestion. 

After  the  death  of  St.  John,  Ignatius  felt  that  the  Pres- 
byter-Bishops who  had  been  last  ordained  by  St.  John, 
(the  last  survivor  of  the  Twelve)  ; those  whom  he  ordained 
after  receiving  the  Revelation  and  who  were  his  legacy 
to  the  Church,  were  best  fitted  to  take  up  the  burden  of 
oversight  which  the  Holy  Apostle  had  laid  down;  and 
thus  the  order  of  Bishops  as  distinct  from  Presbyters  came 
into  being.  He  himself  clung  to  the  time-honored  title  of 
Presbyter  to  which  he  had  been  ordained  (probably)  by 
St.  John,  but  he  urges  obedience  to  these  Bishops  or  Pres- 
byters who  had  been  specially  designated  for  the  work  of 
oversight  and  administration  as  essential  to  the  welfare 
of  the  Church.  May  it  not  be  the  case  that  in  view  of 
the  assignment  of  these  Presbyter-Bishops  last  ordained  by 
St.  John,  to  the  special  work  and  responsibility  of  over- 
sight and  administration,  they  are  said  to  have  been  or- 


INTRODUCTION. 


41 


dalned  Bishops  instead  of  Elders,  although  the  ordination 
had  been  the  usual  one  for  Elders?  From  the  facts  con- 
nected with  their  ordination  they  were  counted  worthy 
above  other  Presbyters  of  perpetuating  the  apostolic  Min- 
istry and  by  the  time  of  Irenaeus  were  regarded  as  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles.  Ordination  at  their  hands  was 
more  sacred  than  by  the  laying  on  of  other  hands  of  the 
Presbytery,  and  other  consequences  followed  which  need 
not  detain  us  here. 

Ignatius,  Polycarp  and  Irenaeus  are  always  spoken  of 
in  writings  after  their  day  as  Bishops  appointed  by  St. 
John,  or  as  deriving  their  authority  from  him.  With  them, 
and  others  in  the  same  line,  a new  or  Apostolic  Episco- 
pate, so  called,  seems  to  have  been  developed  in  Asia 
Minor,  however  it  may  have  originated. 

In  Europe  there  had  been  no  such  intimate  association 
with  “the  Twelve”  as  in  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.  St. 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  possibly  St.  Peter  in  Rome,  had 
labored  there,  but  the  work  attributed  to  St.  John  of  estab- 
lishing a more  rigid  organization  in  Asia  Minor  was  not  at 
once  extended  to  that  continent.  The  claim  of  the  New 
Episcopal  Order  to  superiority  was  probably  not  even  in 
Asia  cheerfully  conceded  by  all  the  Presbyters,  or  Bishops 
who  had  previously  been  in  control.  I think  this  may 
account  for  the  strong  language  used  by  St.  Ignatius  and 
St.  Irenaeus.  They  were  insisting  upon  what  even  some 
of  the  Asian  Churches  were  reluctant  to  accept. 

This  is  the  place  where  contemporary  evidence  is  most 
desirable,  and  the  nearest  to  it  is  the  Epistles  of  St.  Ig- 


42 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


natius.  (About  A.  D.  110.)  Here  I first  find  the 
Ministry  described  as  consisting  of  “ Bishops,  Presbyters 
and  Deacons.”  It  is  not  necessary  to  raise  any  question 
about  his  own  Orders  in  this  matter.  He  himself  deriving 
his  authority  from  St.  John,  as  subsequent  ecclesiastical 
History  states,  though  he  does  not  claim  apostolic 
authority,  or  commission,  must  have  been  disturbed 
by  the  condition  of  Churches  which  were  in  more 
or  less  confusion.  His  strong  language  suits  an 

unsettled  state  of  affairs.  The  traditions  must  be 

preserved,  heretics  resisted,  and  false  teachings  whether 
of  Jewish  or  Gentile  origin  must  be  corrected.  It 
IS  likely  that  the  persecutions  by  the  civil  authorities  had 
broken  up  some  of  the  Churches,  at  least  temporarily,  and 
produced  confusion  in  all.  A strong  organization  was 
needed.  It  was  of  less  importance  how  and  by  what 
agency  Bishops  were  appointed  than  that  their  authority 
be  recognized.  So  he  leaves  it  undetermined  whether  St. 
John  or  the  Churches  created  the  new  ecclesiastical  order. 
At  the  same  time  the  many  versions  of  his  Epistles  as  we 
have  them,  some  long,  and  some  short,  deprive  them  of 
some  of  their  evidential  value.  It  looks  as  though  the 
letters  had  been  subsequently  depended  upon  to  serve  a 
purpose;  and  they  may  have  been  later  “ amended”  or 
” enlarged  ” or  “ explained  ” by  interpolations,  m order 
to  strengthen  the  new  form  of  government  by  his  saintly 
authority. 

As  I have  not  access  here  to  the  originals  of  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Ignatius  I have  consulted  the  translations  of  Arch- 


INTRODUCTION. 


43 


bishop  Wake.  In  all  of  them,  except  that  to  the  Romans 
where  I find  no  statement  in  regard  to  “ Bishops,  Pres- 
byters and  Deacons,”  these  officers  hold  a prominent 
place.  To  the  Trallians,  Ignatius  says,  “ Without 
Bishop,  Presbyters  and  Deacons  there  is  no  Church.” 
Again  he  says  to  them,  “ Who  does  anything  without  the 
Bishop,  Presbyters  and  Deacons  is  not  pure  in  his  con- 
science.” To  the  Philadelphians  he  says,  “ I cried  with 
a loud  voice.  Attend  to  the  Bishop,  to  the  Presbyters  and 
to  the  Deacons.”  To  the  Smyrnaeans  he  says,  “Without 
a Bishop  it  is  not  lawful  to  baptize,  nor  celebrate  the  Holy 
Communion.”  And  again  to  the  same,  “ See  that  ye 
follow  the  Bishop  even  as  Christ  Jesus  does  the  Father, 
and  the  Presbytery  as  ye  would  the  Apostles.  Do  ye  also 
reverence  the  Deacons,  etc.”  “ Let  the  laity  be  subject 
to  the  Deacons;  the  Deacons  to  the  Presbyters;  the  Pres- 
byters to  the  Bishop;  the  Bishops  to  Christ,  even  as  He  is 
to  the  Father.”  These  are  only  a few  phrases  interspersed 
in  certain  chapters  where  they  do  not  always  seem  con- 
sonant with  the  context.  The  recurrence  of  such  phrases, 
so  different  from  anything  we  have  met  with  before,  natu- 
rally gives  rise  to  a suspicion  that  what  the  writer  is  urging 
upon  the  Churches  is  something  new,  or  that  the  phrases 
are  interpolations.  It  is  difficult  to  reconcile  them,  whether 
they  were  written  by  the  venerable  saint  or  inwritten  by  a 
later  hand,  with  the  existence  of  a well  established  and 
accepted  polity.  To  my  mind  they  indicate  the  attempt 
to  enforce  something  with  which  his  correspondents  were, 
at  least,  not  familiar.  It  is  unfortunate  that  he  does  not 


44 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


tell  us  how  the  new  Order  originated  and  by  what  author- 
ity it  was  created. 

Apparently  the  organization  of  the  Church  as  described 
by  St.  Ignatius  was  completed  in  his  own  day  in  some 
parts  of  Christendom  to  meet  the  pressing  needs  of  a 
rapidly  growing,  but  insufficiently  organized  society,  when 
the  inspired  prophet  and  evangelist  who  had  been  the  in- 
dividual directors  of  Church  affairs  were  to  give  place  to 
the  administrator  “ whose  qualifications  lay  in  his  rela- 
tion to  the  institution.”  On  the  earthly  side  the  Church 
has  no  existence  apart  from  the  men  and  women  who 
form  it.  Hence  there  were  dissensions,  ambitions,  and 
disorders  as  in  all  human  societies.  Diotrephes  loved  to 
have  the  pre-eminence  (3  John  9)  and  the  Nicolaitanes 
taught  a doctrine  which  St.  John  hated  (Rev.  ii,  15) 
while  without  were  persecutions  from  the  government  and 
the  hatred  of  the  people.  Only  a strong  hand  could  pre- 
serve the  requisite  peace. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  Episcopate  extolled  by  St.  Ignatius  is  not  the  diocesan 
Episcopate  but  a local  or  parish  Episcopate.  St.  Irenasus, 
an  Asiatic  of  two  or  three  generations  later  in  the  order 
of  succession  ascribed  to  St.  John,  severely  arraigns  those 
who  deny  the  apostolicity  or  refuse  to  submit  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  Episcopate.  So  it  seems  that  there  were 
those  who  were  reluctant  to  accept  it  even  as  late  as  in 
Irenaeus’  day. 

Within  the  last  thirty  years  some  new  testimony  has 
been  obtained  from  Bishop  Bryennios’  publication  of 


INTRODUCTION. 


45 


“ The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.”  The  late  Dr. 
C.  Taylor,  Master  of  St.  John’s  College,  in  Cambridge, 
England,  assigns  this  document  to  the  time  of  Justin 
Martyr,  about  A.  D.  1 40 — others  place  it  earlier — while 
it  is  contended  by  many  that  it  was  for  several  centuries 
a standard  of  instruction  and  was  subjected  to  many  re- 
visions to  meet  new  exigencies.  Dr.  Taylor  points  out, 
as  any  reader  of  it  will  see  for  himself,  that  at  that  time 
(sometime  after  St.  Ignatius),  the  “organization  of  the 
Church  ” was  still  “ in  solution.” 

About  the  year  A.  D.  200  Episcopacy  in  some  form 
generally  prevailed.  “ In  some  form;”  for  I am  per- 
suaded that  it  was  later  than  this  that  the  apostolic  Epis- 
copate contended  for  by  St.  Irenaeus  and  others,  the 
new  Episcopate  ascribed  to  St.  John  and  deriving 
its  authority  from  our  Lord  through  tactual  succession 
from  that  Apostle,  and  not  from  a congregation,  or  from 
Presbyters,  superseded  all  other  forms  of  Church  govern- 
ment and  became  universal.  I believe  that  the  ambiguity 
of  the  term  Episcopus  for  a considerable  period  has  been 
the  cause  of  much  controversy.  The  monarchial  form  of 
state  government  favored  Episcopacy.  Episcopacy  in 
whatever  form,  had  been  generally  established  to  meet 
the  needs  of  the  Church,  but  in  the  Chor-Episcopi  we  still 
find  traces  of  the  former  parity  of  Presbyters  and  Bishops; 
and  perhaps  in  the  Autokephalae  we  have  traces  of  the 
survival  of  Sees  which  maintained  their  right  to  appoint 
their  own  Bishops  in  their  own  way  until  a late  date. 

The  following  are  well  known  extracts  from  the  Chris- 


46 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


tian  Fathers  on  the  original  parity  of  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  some  early  views 
of  the  rise,  or  institution  of  the  Episcopate.  An  extract 
is  also  given  from  Irenaeus  (A.  D.  198)  who  takes  the 
view  which  has  been  so  largely  accepted  and  which  pre- 
vailed unquestioned  for  so  many  centuries  that  Bishops 
were  appointed  by  the  Apostles  as  their  successors. 

Clement  of  Rome  (A.  D.  93-101),  seems  to  have 
regarded  himself  as  a Presbyter.  The  conflicting  state- 
ments as  to  who  was  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome,  Linus  or 
Clement  (and  where  does  Anacletus,  or  Cletus,  come 
in?)  and  other  considerations,  lead  me  to  take  Clement’s 
word  for  it,  that  he  was  a Presbyter — or,  if  you  perfer  it, 
a Presbyter-Bishop  but  not  what  may  be  called  an 
“ Apostolic  Bishop.”  It  does  not  appear  from  his  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  that  there  was  any  Apostolic  Bishop, 
i.  e.,  a Bishop  in  our  understanding  of  the  term,  a single 
Bishop  deriving  his  authority  from  an  Apostle,  in  the 
Church  at  Corinth.  In  the  42nd.  Chapter  of  the  first 
Epistle  he  specifies  two  orders,  synonomous  with  Pres- 
byters or  Elders  in  the  Christian-Jewish  Synagogue,  and 
Deacons.  “ Therefore  (the  Apostles),  preaching  through 
countries  and  cities  appointed  the  first  fruits  (of  their  la- 
bors) having  tested  them  by  the  Spirit,  as  Bishops  and 
Deacons  of  those  who  were  about  to  believe”  and  in  Chap- 
ter 44  he  makes  Bishops  and  Presbyters  the  same  officers. 
” For  our  sin  is  not  small  if  we  throw  out  of  the  oversight 
(or  Episcopate),  those  who  blamelessly  and  holily  offered 
the  gifts.  Blessed  are  the  Presbyters  who  having  already 


INTRODUCTlOrJ. 


47 


finished  their  course  have  obtained  a fruitful  and  com- 
plete release.” 

I venture  to  recall  attention  to  the  fact  that  Ignatius’ 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  singularly  free  from  the  asser- 
tions found  in  his  other  Epistles  in  regard  to  the  universal- 
ity, or  necessity  of  three  orders  in  the  Ministry.  The  two 
saintly  men,  Clement  and  Ignatius,  were  contemporaries, 
but  it  seems  from  the  documents  that  while  the  Episcopal 
polity  had  been  established  in  Asia  Minor  it  had  not  yet 
been  definitely  established  in  Rome;  or  if  there  was  a 
Bishop  in  Rome  his  position  was  not  the  same  as  that  of 
Ignatius  in  Antioch. 

Chrysostom  Horn,  ix,  on  Ep.  ad  Tim.  “ In  old  times 
the  Presbyters  were  called  Bishops  and  the  Ministers  (or 
Deacons),  of  Christ,  and  the  Bishops  Presbyters.” 

Irenaeus,  who  came  from  Asia  Minor  where  the  Apos- 
tolic Episcopate  had,  it  is  claimed,  been  established  by 
St.  John  at  least  a hundred  years  before  his  day,  and  who 
is  reckoned  a Bishop  in  the  Johannean  line,  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  aware  of  the  former  parity  of  those  called 
Presbyters  and  Bishops.  He  speaks  sometimes  as  though 
the  Presbyters  were  the  keepers  of  apostolic  tradition; 
and  then  he  calls  upon  the  Bishops  for  the  establishment  of 
the  truth.  Probably  the  first  were  the  popular,  the  sec- 
ond the  official  transmitters  of  the  Faith.  He  is  said  to 
have  been  the  first  to  promulgate  the  theory  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Succession,  though  it  seems  to  have  been  intimated 
earlier  by  Clement  of  Rome.  His  statement  suggests  the 
manner  in  which  the  theory  of  the  Apostolic  Succession,  if 


48 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


it  is  not  historically  established,  may  have  grown  up  as  a 
necessary  inference  from  the  nature  and  duties  of  the 
Episcopal  office  as  the  keeper  of  the  truth. 

If  the  Apostles  had  provided  for  the  preservation  of 
our  Lord’s  teachings  either  by  special  instruction  of  chosen 
men  or  by  having  them  written  down  for  succeeding  gener- 
ations, then  the  custodians  of  those  traditions  or  records 
would  be  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  for  maintaining 
the  Faith  in  its  integrity.  (2  Tim.  ii:  2.)  Apostolic  ap- 
pointment of  such  officers  seems  reasonable  and  was  sooner 
or  later  assumed. 

Irenasus  iii,  3.  1 . “ In  every  Church  all  who  wish  to 

see  the  truth  have  before  them  the  tradition  of  the  Apos- 
tles clearly  manifested  throughout  the  whole  world;  and 
we  have  it  in  our  power  to  name  (or  number)  those  who 
were  instituted  b]^  the  Apostles  Bishops  in  the  Churches, 
and  their  successors,  even  to  ourselves,  who  taught  no 
such  thing  as  they  deliriously  maintain”  (about  198 
A.  D.).  Ignatius  seems  to  have  been  ignorant  of  this 
claim  when  he  wrote  his  epistles  and  so  urgently  pressed 
the  acceptance  of  Bishops  on  the  several  Asian  Churches. 

Jerome,  Commentary  on  Titus  i,  v,  5.  “ Therefore 

the  Presbyter  is  the  same  as  the  Bishop  and  before 
that  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil  factions  were  made 
(or  brought  into)  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the 
people,  I am  of  Paul,  I of  Apollos,  and  I of  Cephas,  the 
Churches  were  governed  by  a common  council  of  Pres- 
byters. But  when  everyone  began  to  reckon  those  whom 
he  had  baptized  as  his  own  (disciples)  instead  of  Christ’s 


INTRODUCTION, 


49 


it  was  decreed  (by  whom?)  throughout  the  world  that 
one  chosen  from  the  Presbyters  should  be  set  over  the 
others,  to  whom  the  care  of  the  whole  Church  should  be 
assigned,  and  the  seeds  of  schism  be  removed.  If  any- 
one thinks  that  it  is  my  own  opinion  and  not  the  teaching 
of  the  Scriptures  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are  one — 
this  name  (presbyter  or  elder)  because  of  age,  that  name 
(bishop)  on  account  of  office — let  him  read  again  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Philippians,  saying:  Paul 
and  Timothy,  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints 
in  Christ  Jesus  who  are  at  Philippi  with  the  Bishops  and 
Deacons,  grace  be  unto  you  and  peace,  etc.  With  the 
fathers  Presbyters  and  Bishops  were  the  same.  Gradually 
indeed,  all  the  care  was  conferred  upon  one  in  order  that 
the  nurseries  of  dissensions  might  be  rooted  out.  There- 
fore just  as  the  Presbyters  know  that  it  is  by  the  usage  of 
the  Church  that  they  are  subject  to  him  that  is  over  them, 
so  let  the  Bishops  know  that  they  are  superior  to  Pres- 
byters rather  by  custom  than  by  the  reality  of  divine  or- 
dering. 

“ At  Alexandria  from  Mark  the  Evangelist  to  Bishops 
Heraclas  (A.  D.  240),  and  Dionysius  the  Presbyters 
were  always  accustomed  to  name  one  chosen  from  them- 
selves and  elevated  to  a higher  grade  as  Bishop,^  just  as 


* Jerome  tells  us  nothing  about  the  consecration  of  the  Bishop  of  Alex- 
andria, but  Eutychus  in  the  tenth  century  confirming  Jerome’s  statement  adds 
that  the  Eleven  other  Presbyters  placed  their  hands  upon  his  head  in  bless- 
ing and  created  him  patriarch.  (Cujus  Capiti  reliqui  undecim  memus  im- 
ponentes  ipsi  benedicerent  et  Patriarcham  Crearent.)  Migne  Patr.  Graec,  CXI. 


50 


THE  level  plan  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


an  army  makes  its  emperor,  or  as  the  Deacons  choose  from 
among  .themselves  someone  whom  they  have  known  to  be 
industrious  and  call  him  Archdeacon.  For  what  does  a 
Bishop  do  which  a Presbyter  may  not  do,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  ordination?  ” 

Merely  to  say  that  St.  John  created  the  Episcopate 
does  not,  to  my  mind,  tell  the  whole  story.  Ecclesiastical 
or  congregational  Bishops  had,  I believe,  been  appointed 
by  the  first  disciples  in  Europe  in  the  absence  of  Apostles, 
merely,  as  officers  of  the  Ecclesiae,  in  Alexandria  by  the 
council  of  Presbyters,  and  now  we  have  apostolic 
Bishops  attributed  to  St.  John.  Congregational  Bishops^ 
Presbyterian  Bishops  and  apostolic  Bishops.  Surely  the 
Bishop  was  a recognized  need  of  the  Church. 

Granting  that  St.  John  established  the  Episcopate  it  was 
not  the  first  act  of  his  apostleship,  but  his  concluding  work. 
It  was  the  summary  and  completion  of  what  had  grown 
up  and  been  evolved  during  the  first  century,  in  the  way  of 
Church  government.  It  was  not  an  arbitrary  act  unre- 
lated to  the  actual  state  of  affairs  or  to  what  had  preceded. 
The  Ecclesiae  had  Bishops  by  Congregational  or  Pres- 
byterial  action,  and  the  venerable  Apostle,  the  Beloved 
Disciple,  sanctions  the  office,  possibly  he  enlarges  its 
powers  and  consecrates  it  to  be  the  deposit  of  the  author- 
ity which  was  committed  to  the  Apostles.  The  Episco- 
pate was  not  imposed  by  St.  John,  but  already  existed  and 
he  sanctioned  and  regulated  it.  We  read  in  Acts  xv, 
23,  that  the  Apostles,  Elders  and  Brethren  together  ex- 
pressed the  decision  of  the  Church  on  a certain  matter. 


INTRODUCTION. 


51 


So  in  the  establishment  of  the  Episcopate  there  was  the 
concurrence  of  the  Democratic  (Congregational),  the 
Aristocratic  (Presbyterian)  and  the  Monarchial  (Apos- 
tolic) authority;  and  by  it  we  have  a combination  of  all 
the  three  forms  of  government  considered  by  philosophers 
as  possible  and  practicable.  Neither  one  is  independent 
of  the  others.  The  concurrence  of  the  people  and  the 
Clergy  in  St.  John’s  institution  of  the  Episcopate  should 
not  be  forgotten  when  we  consider  its  claims.  I do  not 
understand  that  he  commanded  it  to  be  made  universal 
and  perpetually  unchangeable;  but  that  he  instituted  it 
where  he  was  requested  to  do  so,  accepting,  regulating 
and  sanctioning  what  had  already  been  done  in  that  direc- 
tion, and  it  spread  naturally  until  it  embraced  substantially 
the  whole  Church. 

The  trend  of  affairs  from  the  beginning  was  towards 
the  Episcopate.  The  end  was  reached  in  such  a way  as 
to  protect  the  Church  from  possible  abuses  such  as 
the  Apostles,  according  to  the  Roman  Clement,  feared; 
but  it  is  not  probable  that  they  created  an  irresponsible 
oligarchy  or  an  unchangeable  caste  in  the  Church  in  order 
to  secure  the  Church  from  abuses  of  its  offices.  They 
left  the  authority  with  the  Church  itself. 

A word  in  regard  to  the  extension  of  the  Historic 
Episcopate.  As  time  went  on  the  need  of  uniformity 
became  more  pressing  and  the  greater  efficiency  of  the 
Episcopal  polity  caused  its  rapid  extension.  It  seems 
probable  that  when  many  congregations  had  been  formed 
in  one  city,  the  “ Elder  ” or  “ Presbyter  ” in  charge  of 


52 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


the  Mother  Church  became  by  natural  development  the 
Episcopus,  or  ruling  Presbyter  of  the  Churches  in  that 
city.  As  the  Episcopal  organization  came  into  fuller 
operation  this  officer  took  the  name  signifying  the  func- 
tion which  he  discharged.  The  word  Bishop  ceased  to 
be  synonymous  with  Presbyter  and  became  a Title.  I 
do  not  find  that  another  ordination  or  consecration  was 
added  at  first.  The  Presbyter,  or  one  of  the  Episcopi, 
was  elevated  above  his  former  peers  by  the  voice  of  the 
Ecclesia^as  in  Alexandria.  Soon,  however,  it  would  be 
felt  that  there  was  a difference  between  the  apostolically 
appointed  Bishops  and  those  appointed  by  the  Churches 
or  Clergy  and  this  would  awaken  a sense  of  inferiority  on 
the  part  of  the  latter  who  would  naturally  seek  equaliza- 
tion by  an  ordination  at  the  hands  of  those  in  Apostolic 
Succession.  And  here  it  is  to  be  recollected  that  it  was 
several  generations  after  Episcopacy  became  ^general  that 
the  provision  was  adopted  which  regulated  the  appoint- 
ment and  consecration  of  Bishops  in  one  uniform  manner, 
but  I think  the  Episcopate  was  originally  extended  among 
the  Churches  very  much  as  Bishop  Brown  now  proposes. 

A strong  and  uniform  organization  in  the  various 
Ecclesiae  was  necessary  to  prevent  the  Christians  from 
falling  into  warring  camps,  to  establish  the  unity  neces- 
sary to  the  perpetuation  of  the  Church  in  the  face  of  per- 
secutions, to  preserve  Christian  doctrine,  to  maintain  peace 
and  order,  and  when  the  exigencies  of  the  times  called  for 
it  to  weld  into  a great  and  mighty  ecclesiastical  State  the 
scattered  Churches  of  the  Roman  Empire  m preparation 


INTRODUCTION. 


53 


for  the  time  of  supreme  trial  when  the  Empire  would  be 
shattered  into  fragments  under  the  blows  of  the  Bar- 
barians. 

An  institution  which  by  its  intrinsic  character  is  fit  for 
the  highest  and  holiest  service  and  by  this  fitness  secures 
universal  adoption  in  the  Churches  of  God  and  benefi- 
ciently  controls  their  work  for  centuries  may  well  commend 
itself  for  voluntary  adoption  by  those  who  would  deny 
that  it  was  established  by  apostolic  fiat  as  uncondition- 
ally, perpetually  and  universally  indispensable. 

It  is  outside  of  my  line  of  inquiry  to  trace  the  manner 
in  which  the  local  Episcopate  came  to  absorb  the  powers 
which  had  been  previously  divided  among  the  Presby- 
ters or  Bishops,  Deacons  and  Laity  and  became  diocesan. 
The  process  was  a natural  one.  No  doubt  the  ordinary 
motives  which  move  men  to  seek  aggrandizement  were  at 
work,  but  we  should  remember  that  care  and  responsibil- 
ity were  the  essential  attributes  of  the  office.  The  circum- 
stances were  such  as  moved  men  to  put  upon  the  Episco- 
pate all  it  would  bear.  The  persecutions,  heresies  and 
distractions  of  the  times  made  the  Bishops  the  champions 
as  they  were  the  almoners  and  representatives  of  the 
Church.  It  is  not  strange  that  after  a hundred  years  of 
struggle  for  the  faith,  during  which  time  they  were  prod- 
igal of  their  lives,  they,  as  well  as  the  people,  should  have 
come  to  regard  the  Episcopate  as  of  the  essence  of  the 
Church.  As  the  line  of  heroic  Bishops  who  had  died  in 
the  arena,  or  by  cord,  axe  or  faggot  lengthened  from  year 
to  year;  as  captives  in  the  mines  were  redeemed  again  and 


54 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


again  by  selling  the  holy  vessels  from  the  very  altar,  as 
the  increasing  multitudes  of  the  starving  were  fed  from 
the  Bishop’s  table  from  day  to  day,  we  are  not  so  much 
surprised  that  Cyprian  should  write  (A.  D.  250,  Ep.  68), 
“ You  ought  to  know  that  the  Bishop  is  in  the  Church 
and  the  Church  in  the  Bishop ; and  if  any  one  be  not  with 
the  Bishop  he  is  not  in  the  Church.” 

This  was  written  in  the  heroic  age  of  the  Church  by 
one  of  its  great  heroes  and  martyrs  who  lived  in  a constant 
state  of  exaltation  anticipating  the  death  that  he  knew 
would  sooner  or  later  be  inflicted  upon  him  because  he 
was  a Bishop,  and  therefore  a representative  of  the 
Church.  It  is  not  strange  that  he  should  magnify  his 
office  for  he  knew  its  full  significance  to  both  Christians 
and  pagans.  His  words  describe  the  actual  state  of  affairs 
at  the  moment.  It  is  held  by  some  that  they  express,  also, 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Episcopate  at  all  times; 
that  the  Church  is  contained  in  the  Episcopate,  and  that 
only  by  submitting  to  the  Episcopate,  can  a man  enter 
into  the  Church  and  into  covenant  relations  with  God. 
If  he  is  saved  outside  of  the  Church  it  is  only  by  ” un- 
covenanted grace.”  Yet  St.  Paul  does  not  seem  to  have 
considered  a recognition  of  his  apostolic  authority  as 
necessary  to  the  effectual  preaching  of  Christ.  (Phil,  i, 
15-18.)  This  is  the  doctrine  so  obnoxious  to  our  fellow 
Christians  and  to  which  attention  was  challenged  in  the 
fourth  article  of  the  “Quadrilateral.”  The  Rubric  at  the 
end  of  the  confirmation  office,  which  was  made  for  quite 
a different  purpose,  is  sometimes  pointed  out  in  proof  of 


INTRODUCTION. 


55 


this  claim.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  if  Cyprian’s 
statement  means  that  salvation  from  sin  and  eternal  death 
is  conditioned  on  obedience  to  some  apostolic  Bishop  it 
belongs  to  another  age  and  to  other  conditions  than  those 
in  which  we  live.  The  Church  of  God  was  not  extinct  in 
Scotland,  or  in  certain  German  and  Scandinavian  States, 
when  Bishops  had  been  expelled.  The  rise  and  develop- 
ment of  the  Papacy  which  St.  Cyprian  vigorously  opposed 
was  largely  due  to  circumstances  and,  mutaiis  mutandis, 
the  language  of  Cyprian  is  its  language.  Perhaps  the 
claims  of  both  were  justifiable  under  some  circumstances, 
but  are  no  longer  so. 

What  persecutions  did  for  the  aggrandizement  of 
Bishops  in  St.  Cyprian’s  day  was  completed  by  the  union 
of  the  Church  with  the  State  when  by  the  expansion  of 
the  Episcopate  they  became  Princes  of  the  Empire. 
Thereafter  none  questioned  the  claim  of  Cyprian  for  a 
thousand  years. 

Among  the  Christian  institutions  none  has  done  more 
for  the  elevation  of  mankind  than  the  Historic  Episco- 
pate. It  sat  by  the  cradles  of  the  nations  of  modern 
Europe  and  led  them  in  the  path  of  civilization,  enlighten- 
ment, humanity  and  spiritual  life.  The  part  taken  by 
Bishops  in  State  affairs  in  Europe,  from  which  many  evils 
grew,  was  a necessity  of  the  situation.  The  Clergy  were 
the  learned  men  of  the  times,  the  only  men  competent  to 
deal  wfith  laws  and  civil  administration.  They  rendered 
great  services  to  the  people  to  whom  their  service  was  due, 
by  their  work  in  civil  affairs.  The  governments  were 


56 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


monarchial.  The  Church  had  become  monarchial.  Papal. 
Every  ecclesiastical  question  was  also  a political  question, 
and  every  political  question  had  its  ecclesiastical  aspect. 
What  must  happen  from  such  an  alliance  of  Church  and 
State?  What  has  happened  to  non-Episcopal  Churches 
when  their  officers  became  also  political  placemen?  The 
Episcopate  was  not  the  cause  of  the  evil  but  the  situation 
in  which  it  was  placed.  There  is  also  another  side  to  be 
remembered — the  services  rendered  to  the  poor,  the  sick, 
the  weak  and  the  defenseless.  The  Bishops  were  for 
many  centuries  the  only  champions  of  the  oppressed.  The 
right  of  Asylum,  their  Orphanages,  Hospitals,  Schools — 
not  too  dangerously  advanced,  it  is  true — and  personal 
Ministries  stemmed  the  torrent  of  horrors,  and  brighten 
the  dark  pages  of  a history  otherwise  full  of  the  welter 
of  violence,  rapine  and  murder.  Many  of  them  paid  with 
their  lives  the  price  of  opposing  the  soldiers  of  fortune  in 
their  forays,  or  the  violent  nobles  in  their  monstrous  ex- 
actions. They  were  for  centuries  recognized  as  the  God- 
appointed  friend  of  all  in  need  and  the  Order  has  no 
cause  to  blush  for  its  record.  Men  who  meet  and  redress 
the  evils  of  our  own  day  as  efficiently  as  the  Bishops  met 
those  in  the  dark  centuries  of  our  era  soon  find  the  same 
power  voluntarily  placed  in  their  hands. 

How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  Episcopate  is  to-day  re- 
jected by  the  Churches  and  people  of  great  nations  who 
are  enjoying  the  fruits  of  Episcopal  toll  and  teaching?  And 
why  is  only  a small  number  of  our  own  people  attached 


INTRODUCTION. 


57 


to  its  cause?  Its  origin  and  history  promise  better  things 
than  we  see  at  present. 

In  answer  to  this  question  we  may  say  in  a few  words 
that  the  Episcopate,  after  a struggle,  was  finally  reduced 
to  a function  of  the  Papacy  and  became  its  instrument 
for  good  or  evil  for  many  centuries,  and  where  the  Papacy 
was  rejected  the  Episcopate,  save  in  England  and  per- 
haps one  or  two  other  places  was  rejected  with  it.  Their 
conduct  in  regard  to  the  Reformation  shook  people’s  con- 
fidence in  their  claim  to  apostolical  commission  and 
authority. 


IV. 

VIEW  TAKEN  OF  BISHOPS  BY  THE 
REFORMERS. 

For  over  a thousand  years  the  Western  Church 
had  been  governed  from  Rome  mostly  through  the 
Bishops.  There  was  “ a coercive  sense  of  in- 
grained usage  ” in  Christendom.  Every  inherited  thought 
made  Bishops  the  channel  of  Divine  authority,  and  to 
question  their  position  or  seriously  to  fault  their  conduct 
bordered  upon  sacrilege  and  there  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  any  intention  or  desire  to  attack  their  order  or  reduce 
their  power. 

In  the  following  citations  I have  been  obliged  to  de- 


58 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


pend  upon  Froude  (who  has  been  sharply  criticised),  as 
I have  not  access  to  the  work  of  Erasmus. 

The  following  extract  from  his  “ Life  and  Letters  of 
Erasmus  ” is  added  as  showing  that  the  contention  of  the 
Reformers  when  they  began  their  work,  was  for  a moral 
reformation,  not  a change  in  ecclesiastical  polity.  At 
first  they  were  satisfied  that  it  could  not  be  bettered,  how- 
ever it  may  have  arisen.  The  Protestant  Churches  with 
their  non-Episcopal  polities  (save  in  a few  countries  and 
especially  in  England)  were  brought  into  being  by  the 
refusal  on  the  part  of  the  Western  Church  to  effect  such 
moral  Reformation.  As  the  Episcopate  had  been  re- 
garded as  of  the  essence  of  the  Church  it  was  felt  at 
Rome  that  if  the  Reformers  had  no  Bishops  among  them 
the  movement  must  collapse.  This  made  England  with 
her  Bishops  in  a Reformed  Church  the  Bulwark  of  the 
Reformation  in  the  eyes  of  Rome. 

We  read  in  Froude’s  15th  Lecture  on  “ The  Life  and 
Letters  of  Erasmus,”  that  “ Luther  had  at  first  desired 
nothing  beyond  a reform  of  scandal  and  immorality.” 
And  again  we  read  in  Lecture  XI:  “Luther  had  not 
meant  to  raise  such  a tempest.  He  had  merely  protested 
against  scandal.  If  the  Pope  would  have  stopped  the  sale 
of  the  Indulgences  and  condemned  the  grossness  of  Tetzel 
and  his  doings,  Luther,  much  as  he  disliked  the  teaching 
and  practice  of  the  Church  in  general,  would  have  said 
no  more  and  his  own.  share  in  the  revolt  would  have 
ended.” 

In  a letter  from  Luvian,  dated  January  28th,  1529, 


INTRODUCTION. 


69 


Erasmus  writes:  “ I know  not  how  Popes  came  by  their 
authority.  I suppose  it  was  as  Bishops  came  by  theirs. 
Each  Presbytery  chose  one  of  its  members  as  President 
to  prevent  divisions.  Bishops  similarly  found  it  expedient 
to  have  a chief  Bishop  to  check  rivalries  and  defend  the 
Church  against  the  secular  powers.” 

In  another  letter  dated  April  1st,  1529,  he  says:  ” I 
have  wished  that  the  Popes  and  Cardinals  were  more  like 
the  Apostles,  but  never  in  thought  have  I desired  their 
offices  abolished.” 

In  his  comment  on  St.  Matthew  xxiii  on  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  we  read,  ” You  may  find  a Bishop  here 
and  there  who  teaches  the  Gospel,  though  life  and  teach- 
ing have  small  agreement.  But  what  shall  we  say  of 
those  who  destroy  the  Gospel  itself,  make  laws  at  their 
will,  tyrannize  over  the  laity  and  measure  right  and 
wrong  with  rules  constructed  by  themselves?  Of  those  who 
entangle  their  flocks  in  the  meshes  of  crafty  cunning,  who 
sit  not  in  the  seat  of  the  Gospel,  but  in  the  seat  of  Caia- 
phas  and  Simon-Magus — prelates  of  evil  who  bring  dis- 
grace and  discredit  on  their  worthier  Brethren?  ” 

So  far  were  many  of  the  Reformers  from  desiring  a 
change  in  the  Polity  of  the  Church  that  they  looked  to 
the  Church  dignitaries,  and  especially  to  the  Bishops  to 
lead  in  the  work  of  reform.  But  on  the  Continent  when 
the  test  came,  these  latter,  although  many  of  them  were 
favorably  disposed  towards  a Reformation,  stood  by  the 
Papal  Court  corruptions  and  all.  Reading  a history  of 
the  councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  Farrara  and  The  Lat- 


GO 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


eran,  one  can  hardly  fail  to  be  impressed  with  the  con- 
viction that  the  ecclesiastics  feared  the  loss  of  their  powers 
and  privileges  more  than  they  disliked  the  corruptions  of 
the  Church.  As  the  strife  waxed  warm  between  the 
parties  the  palaces  of  the  Bishops  came  to  be  regarded, 
justly  or  unjustly,  as  the  centres  of  the  tyranny  and  oppres- 
sion and  corruption  under  which  the  Church  and  people 
were  groaning  and  the  Reformers  were  compelled  to  choose 
between  a Reformed  Church  without  Bishops  or  Bishops 
without  a Reformed  Church.  When  this  issue  became 
apparent,  many  noble  men,  like  Erasmus  himself,  returned 
sadly  to  their  allegiance  to  the  Church  as  it  was  in  its 
deep  corruptions.  It  was  the  Temple,  though  fouled  with 
all  uncleanness.  But  there  were  sturdier  folk  than  these 
who,  despairing  of  any  Reformation  within  the  Church, 
felt  that  they  “ must  obey  God  rather  than  men,”  even 
though  the  men  were  clad  in  the  robes  of  the  Priesthood 
and  sat  in  the  seats  of  the  angels.  They  chose  then  as  they 
would  choose  to-day  in  such  a cruel  dilemma ; even  though 
the  men,  in  the  blindness  of  their  hearts,  like  the  Jewish 
authorities  of  our  Lord’s  day,  spake  in  the  name  of  God, 
and,  as  they  thought,  by  divine  authority.  No,  it  was  not 
wholly  the  fault  of  the  Reformers  that  Bishops  were  not 
found  among  them  on  the  Continent;  and  they  believed 
that  God  could  do  His  blessed  work  for  men  even  though 
His  accredited  Ministers  should  fail  Him;  and  they  went 
bravely  forth. 

The  attitude  of  the  English  Church  towards  the  Episco- 


INTRODUCTION. 


61 


pate  is  important  to  us  because  the  Institution  came  to  us 
through  the  English  Church  and,  indeed,  goes  by  the 
name  of  the  “ Anglican  Episcopate.”  The  English  Re- 
formers were  divided  in  their  views.  Was  it  instituted 
Jure  Divino  and  made  perpetual  and  indispensable  in  the 
Church?  Or  was  it  created  by  ecclesiastical  enactment 
for  “ the  edifying  and  well  governing  of  the  Church,”  or 
did  it  exist  subject  to  the  royal  pleasure?  The  general 
opinion  seems  to  have  favored  the  Jure  Divino  theory, 
so  far  as  I can  judge;  but  the  view  that  the  Episcopate 
is  an  ecclesiastical  creation  was  held  by  many  devout  and 
scholarly  men.  The  third  view,  that  it  is  of  State  estab- 
lishment, is  less  wide-spread  than  it  was  in  the  early  years 
of  the  last  century  before  the  days  of  Newman  and  Pusey. 
Hallam  in  a note  in  his  “ Constitutional  History  of  Eng- 
land ” 1 625-29,  says  that  “ Cranmer  and  some  of  the 
original  founders  of  the  Anglican  Church  far  from  main- 
taining the  divine  and  Indispensable  right  of  Episcopal 
Government,  held  Bishops  and  Priests  to  be  the  same 
order.”  “ Were  the  Lutherans  for  lack  of  Bishops  of 
Apostolic  Succession,  and  the  Calvinists  who  had  abol- 
ished the  order,  aliens  and  schismatics  with  whom  no 
communion  was  to  be  held,  or  were  they  brethren  of  the 
same  faith?  ” 

Bacon  says  that  “ some  indiscreet  persons  have  been 
bold  in  open  preaching  to  use  dishonorable  and  derogatory 
speech  and  censure  of  the  Churches  abroad;  and  that  so 
far  as  that  some  of  our  men  ordained  in  foreign  parts  have 
been  pronounced  to  be  no  lawful  Ministers.”  Natives 


62 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


regularly  ordained  abroad  in  the  Presbyterian  Churches 
were  admitted  to  hold  preferment  in  England.  Bishop 
Aylmer  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  object  to  them,  but 
the  practice  continued  until  the  act  of  uniformity  in  1 662. 
Bancroft  seems  to  have  been  less  positive  in  maintaining 
the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  in  his  famous  sermon 
(1588)  than  we  should  have  expected.  Even  as  late  as 
1 634  Laud  was  “ reproved  ” by  the  University  of  Ox- 
ford for  maintaining,  or  having  maintained,  that  there 
could  be  no  Church  without  Bishops.  Previous  to  his 
day  Archbishop  Whltgift  told  Cartwright,  who  main- 
tained that  the  discipline  of  Christ’s  Church  which  is 
necessary  for  all  times  is  delivered  by  Christ  and  set 
down  in  Holy  Scriptures,”  that  ” Church  discipline  and 
ceremony  are  indifFerent.”  It  was  at  a later  day  that  it 
was  found  best  to  meet  the  Presbyterian  claim  of  divine 
right  by  reviving  the  claim  of  an  exclusive  Episcopal 
polity. 

Usher  and  Williams  (about  1640)  proposed  to  reduce 
the  Bishop  to  the  position  of  president  of  a college  of 
Presbyters,  differing  from  them  gradu,  non  or  dine,  and 
acting  with  their  concurrence  in  ordination  and  jurisdiction. 

Hooker’s  position  is  well  known.  Ritual  observances 
are  variable  according  to  the  discretion  of  ecclesiastical 
rulers,  and  no  certain  form  of  polity  is  set  down  in  Scrip- 
ture as  indispensable  for  a Christian  church.  He  con- 
tended for  Episcopacy  as  an  apostolical  institution  and 
always  preferable,  when  circumstances  would  allow  its 
preservatiiwi,  to  the  model  of  the  Calvinistic  congregations. 


INTRODUCTION. 


63 


During  the  whole  period  of  the  Reformation  in  Eng- 
land till  1 662,  or  perhaps,  better,  1688,  we  are  Impressed 
with  the  overpowering  influence  of  the  Crown.  The 
Reformation  had  been  forwarded  by  the  King  who  de- 
clared himself  head  of  the  English  Church.  In  all  sub- 
sequent legislation  the  maintenance  and  strengthening  of 
the  throne  seems  to  have  been  the  predominating  factor. 
Parker  and  Bancroft  (I  think)  thought  of  resigning  be- 
cause the  Queen  threatened  to  absorb  the  ecclesiastical, 
not  to  say  the  religious,  power  in  the  royal.  James  the 
first,  it  is  said,  recalling  his  experience  in  Scotland  with 
the  Presbyterians,  wanted  a docile  Episcopate  to  buttress 
the  throne.  Recalling  the  support  of  Kings  by  Bishops 
he  believed  them  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  his 
power,  if  not  his  place.  “No  Bishop,  no  King,”  he  is 
said  to  have  declared.  As  long  as  he  could  appoint  the 
Bishops  he  felt  secure.  There  were  those  like  Laud,  who 
believed  in  the  Jure  Divino  doctrine  of  the  Episcopate, 
others,  like  Cranmer,  who  believed  it  originally  of  eccle- 
siastical institution,  others  that  it  depended  upon  the  will 
of  the  king  whose  divine  right  was  acknowledged  by  all. 

But  in  the  Providence  of  God  it  has  happened  that  in 
England  “ under  the  pressure  of  the  Crown  and  the  civil 
authorities,”  as  one  says,  or  “ by  the  protection  of  the 
government,”  as  another  states  it — you  choose  your  point 
of  view  and  phrase  the  fact  accordingly — several  Bishops, 
joined  in  the  Reformation  and  thus  provided  a way  for 
the  restoration  of  the  historic  order  to  the  Protestant 
Churches  when  the  time  should  be  ripe  for  it.  At  first 


64 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


the  defect  in  the  Protestant  polity  seemed  likely  to  be 
soon  supplied.  From  political  considerations,  or  from  the 
feeling  that  the  Reformation  of  the  Church  must  be 
strengthened  at  all  hazards — for  a long  time  Clergymen 
from  the  Continent  who  had  received  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation were  permitted  to  hold  places  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. There  was  intercommunion  between  the  English 
and  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent.  But  there 
came  a change  of  policy  on  the  part  of  the  government  and 
soon  a vigorous  party  grew  up  which  refused  to  believe 
that  it  was  possible  to  be  good  Christians  and  to  have  an 
Episcopal  polity  in  the  Church  of  God : so  bitter  were  the 
sufferings  which  were  inflicted  through  the  instrumentality 
of  the  Bishops  during  the  Reformation,  first  on  the  Con- 
tinent and  now  in  England,  largely  due,  I am  persuaded, 
to  an  erroneous  theory  of  the  Episcopate.  This  party 
was  irreconcilable.  For  its  suppression  the  Act  of  Uni- 
formity was  passed  in  1 662  and  it  cut  off  the  Church  of 
England  from  communion  with  every  other  Church  in 
Christendom.  Under  the  control  of  the  State  and  the 
pressure  of  its  patronage  the  Church  could  not  act  if  she 
wished  to.  Now,  this  act  of  Parliament  does  not  bind 
the  Church  in  America.  In  fact,  about  the  only  Churches 
in  the  world  which  are  free  to  act  with  an  eye  single  to 
the  glory  of  God,  are  those  of  this  country,  and  I believe 
we  must  look  to  the  voluntary  action  of  the  free  Churches 
in  this  country  for  the  restoration  of  unity. 


INTRODUCTION. 


65 


V. 

IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  QUESTION  IN  ITS 
RELATION  TO  ECCLESIASTICAL  UNITY. 

IT  WILL  be  gathered  from  what  has  been  said  already 
that  I regard  the  Protestant  Churches  as  in  much  the 
same  position  as  many  of  the  early  Churches  to  which 
I have  referred  which  could  not  have  an  apostolic  Epis- 
copal Ministry  at  first  and  were  compelled  to  organize  as 
they  could.  But  the  problem  before  us  is  not  the  same,  for 
while  the  forms  in  which  the  Churches  appear  to-day  re- 
semble in  some  respects  those  of  the  early  Churches  they 
are  due  to  radically  different  causes.  Then  they  repre- 
sented different  stages  in  the  organization  of  Elements  into 
a whole.  Now  they  are  due  to  a violent  disruption  of  a 
whole  into  organized  fragments  of  dissimilar  forms.  For 
their  reunion  the  common  elemental  life  of  Christian  love 
must  reassert  its  supremacy  and  men  must  discriminate 
between  what  is  indispensable  and  what  is  variable,  and 
of  the  variables  they  should  choose  what  is  best.  On  this 
ground  Hooker  would  give  preference  to  the  Episcopal 
polity.  It  is  the  Historic  polity,  but  if  it  be  pressed  as 
essential  because  of  the  Jure  Divino  theory  connected  with 
its  historicity  and  so  be  made  an  Occasion  of  separation 


66 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


instead  of  a means  of  uniting  the  Churches,  we  should 
examine  carefully  whether  a theory  so  disastrous  in  its 
effects  may  not  be  a mistaken  one. 

From  the  time  of  the  Reformation  at  least,  two  views 
have  been  taken  of  the  Episcopate  by  men  equally  godly, 
equally  sincere  and  equally  learned.  One  is  that  it  is 
“ the  indispensable  channel  of  Divine  grace  ” and  neces- 
sary to  the  being  of  the  Church ; the  other  that  it  is  simply 
best  for  the  well-being  of  the  Church.  But  while  the 
two  schools  differ  in  their  view  of  the  origin  and  character 
of  the  Episcopate  both  admit,  I believe,  that  it  has  proved 
to  be  on  the  whole  the  best  organization  for  maintaining 
the  faith  in  its  integrity,  for  preserving  unity,  securing 
peace  and  order,  and  developing  systematic  activity  in 
the  work  of  missions  and  the  extension  of  the  Church.  In 
view  of  the  causes  which  gave  rise  to  the  institution  of  the 
Episcopate  originally,  and  the  similar  circumstances  in 
which  we  are  placed,  the  extreme  view  which  shuts  us  out 
from  brotherly  relations  and  Intercommunion  with  our 
fellow  Christians  in  a matter  on  which  there  can  be  no 
present  agreement  cannot  be  insisted  upon  consistently  with 
the  claims  of  the  supreme  law  of  charity.  What  is  so 
manifestly  a debatable  claim  cannot  be  made  the  ultimate 
ground  of  unity. 

We  who  possess  the  Episcopate  should  not  forget  that 
the  government  of  the  Church  as  it  was  finally  instituted 
by  St.  John  (?)  in  Asia  Minor,  and  thence  extended 
throughout  Christendom  came  into  being  by  the  ordinary 
dciion  of  Divine  Providence  and  the  officers  of  the  Church 


INTRODUCTION. 


67 


were  the  organs  of  its  corporate  life.  The  Episcopate  is 
not  then  a rigid  cast-iron  institution  which  compels  every- 
thing to  bend  to  its  supremacy.  It  is  in  itself  the  most 
flexible  order  in  the  Ministry.  It  is  as  adaptable  to  the 
work  of  the  Salvation  Army  as  to  that  in  the  Basilica  of 
St.  Peter  at  Rome.  From  the  time  of  its  institution  it 
appears  in  history  in  every  department  and  detail  of 
Christian  work.  In  the  old  British  and  Irish  Churches  it 
was  most  purely  apostolic  because  engaged  solely  in  the 
work  of  preaching  the  Gospel.  After  the  purely  evan- 
gelical Bishops  came  the  formation  and  care  of  individual 
Churches  or  groups  of  Churches  where  administration  and 
rule  gradually  absorbed  the  Bishop’s  energies  more  and 
more.  When  they  ascended  the  thrones  of  Princes  polit- 
ical cares  predominated,  and  in  the  Mediaeval  Papacy 
the  exercise  of  the  spiritual  office  was  reduced  to  a min- 
imum. 

It  is  useless  to  attempt  to  ignore  the  fact  that  while 
all  Christians  own  the  need  of  unity,  deploring  “ our  un- 
happy divisions;”  while  all  confess  the  need  of  co-opera- 
tion for  greater  efficiency  in  the  work  of  Christ;  while  all 
agree  that  the  complete  historic  organization  was  the 
only  one  which,  humanly  speaking,  enabled  the  Church 
to  weather  the  storms  which  wrecked  the  Roman  Empire 
and  reconstruct  society  on  a Christian  basis,  yet  many 
pages  of  subsequent  history  are  a record  of  evils  indis- 
solubly associated  in  the  popular  mind  with  the  hierarchy. 

So  for  this  and  other  reasons,  openly  stated,  it  happens 
that  while  there  is  little  difficulty  with  the  first  three 


68 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


planks  of  the  “Quadrilateral”  all  the  Protestant  Churches 
have  refused  to  accept  that  relating  to  Bishops.  Men 
who  are  anxious  for  unity  declare  that  they  fear  the 
development  of  arbitrary  power  as  the  natural  result  of 
a belief  in  High  Church  doctrine  of  the  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion. In  reply  to  the  argument  from  history  they  allege 
that  even  though  Bishops  be  of  apostolic  order,  the  order 
has  forfeited  its  right  to  exist  by  abuse  of  power  in  the 
past. 

It  may  fairly  be  urged,  however,  that  the  evils  com- 
plained of,  were  not  due  to  Episcopal  organization,  but 
to  human  nature  and  to  royal  institutions  under  which  it 
had  to  live  and  work.  They  are  such  as  any  kind  of  or- 
ganization may  develop. 

If  we  squarely  face  the  question  whether  the  Episco- 
pate is  incompatible  with  a democratic  society,  an  objec- 
tion sometimes  brought  against  it,  we  shall  find,  I think, 
that  it  was  originally  rather  an  evidence  of  the  exercise 
of  a democratic  right.  It  did  not  come  into  being  under 
the  patronage  of  the  Roman  Emperor,  but  it  grew  out  of 
the  exercise  of  the  free  volition  of  the  early  disciples  in 
the  absence  of  all  officers.  They  appointed  their  own 
Episcopi.  In  retaining  the  popular  name  of  Bishop,  in- 
stead of  the  ecclesiastical  name  of  Presbyter  for  the  high- 
est officer  of  the  Church  St.  John(  ?)  seems  to  have  tacitly, 
if  not  avowedly  recognized  the  right  in  the  people  to  a 
decisive  voice  in  the  appointment  of  Church  officers. 
When  the  secular  authorities  took  the  Church  into  the 
service  of  the  State,  Bishops  became  subject  to  them 


INTRODUCTION. 


69 


politically,  but  they  themselves  were  lay  members  of  the 
Church.  The  King  of  England  is  to-day  like  Constan- 
tine, “ a Bishop  outside  of  the  Church.”  I believe  that 
the  Church  has  never  abandoned  its  right  of  participation 
in  some  form  in  the  appointment  of  Bishops. 

The  importance  of  the  question  of  uniformity  in  Church 
organization  cannot  be  easily  overestimated.  The  United 
States  requires  that  every  State  have  a Republican  form 
of  Government  as  the  condition  of  being  admitted  to  the 
union.  It  is  a vital  necessity.  A Federal  State  composed 
of  monarchial,  aristocratic  and  democratic  units  would 
soon  be  in  as  broken  a condition  as  the  Protestant  Churches 
of  to-day.  It  is  true  that  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  East 
are  not  at  unity.  But  they  are  separated  by  race,  or 
doctrine,  or  political  causes.  In  America  the  real  differ- 
ences between  the  Protestant  Churches  is  in  Church  or- 
ganization and  government,  and  a uniform  government 
would  do  much  to  bring  them  together.  To-day  the 
bonds  of  ecclesiastical  exclusion  and  seclusion  are  relax- 
ing. The  desire  for  reunion  is  in  the  air.  The  Reformed 
Churches  are  largely  indifferent  to  our  apostolic  claims, 
or  avowedly  hostile.  Alas,  alas ! They  who  transmitted 
the  priceless  heritage  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  to  our 
day  have  weighted  it  with  such  disabilities  that  it  is 
regarded  as  undesirable  by  those  who  we  believe  would 
be  blessed  by  its  possession! 

If,  then,  it  is  proposed  out  of  Christian  love  to  our 
Brethren  and  for  the  unifying  and  strengthening  of  the 
Kingdom  of  our  Blessed  Lord,  to  offer  to  extend  to  them 


?0  THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 

our  peculiar  inheritance  in  the  Church,  can  we  expect  them 
to  receive  and  hold  it  rigidly  on  the  lines  of  the  Mediaeval 
or  of  the  English  State  Church  whose  traditions  still  linger 
with  us?  Or  on  a theory  which  is  becoming  daily 
weaker  in  the  presence  of  historical  inquiry?  Or,  since 
they  are  Bishopless  through  the  action  of  the  Episcopate 
itself  in  times  past,  and  God  has  abundantly  blessed  them 
and  shown  that  He  is  not  bound  to  the  Episcopate  to 
accomplish  His  blessed  purpose,  should  we  not  consider 
soberly  whether  it  cannot  be  better  adapted  to  American 
life  than  it  is? 

Remembering  that  the  Episcopate  arose  in  God’s  Prov- 
idence to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  situation  then  existing, 
as  the  practical  solution  of  a problem  and  not  as  the  pro- 
mulgation of  a theory,  I cannot  believe  that  although  it 
were  sanctioned  by  St.  John  it  is  prescribed  in  an  unalter- 
able form,  and  given  unchangeable  powers  for  all  time 
and  under  all  circumstances. 

In  seeking  the  form  or  pattern  for  a uniform  organi- 
zation I believe  that  none  can  be  better  than  that  which  in 
early  days  spread  over  the  whole  Church,  and  through 
successive  generations  showed  itself  efficient  and  sufficient 
to  meet  the  requirements  of  our  Blessed  Lord’s  commis- 
sion. Democratic  in  origin,  venerable  by  its  authority 
(even  if  it  be  not  apostolic  in  sanction),  and  vital  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Historic  Episcopate  offers, 
I believe,  the  best  center  of  unity  for  a divided  Christen- 
dom. But  it  cannot  be  the  Imperial  Episcopate  as  Con- 
stantine made  it  for  the  support  of  his  throne;  nor  even,  I 


INTRODUCTION. 


71 


fear,  that  of  Cyprian ; but  rather  an  Episcopate  of  Service 
as  it  was  at  the  first,  and  not  of  honor  and  privilege — for 
service  and  not  personal  rule,  is  what  Christianity  must 
always  stand  for.  (Luke  xxii,  26.  John  xiii,  14.) 

Perhaps  the  time  is  come  for  Christians  to  “ get  to- 
gether ” again;  but  I fear  not  yet  for  many  a long  year. 
Nevertheless,  a conciliatory  attitude,  a disposition  to  share 
with  our  brethren  whatever  we  have  which  can  contribute 
to  the  common  good,  a readiness  to  “ give  and  take  ” can 
do  no  harm.  We  are  the  better  for  having  offered  the 
“ Quadrilateral  ” even  if  it  has  not  been  accepted.  Can  we 
not  go  further  without  periling  our  heritage  in  the  Church 
Universal? 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  paper  deals  only  with  the 
question  of  the  Apostolic  Succession  as  exclusively  in  the 
Episcopate. 


“ Our  trust  in  the  almighty  is,  that  with  us 

CONTENTIONS  ARE  NOW  AT  THEIR  HIGHEST  FLOAT, 
AND  THAT  THE  DAY  WILL  COME  (fOR  WHAT  CAUSE  OF 
DESPAIR  IS  THERE?)  WHEN  THE  PASSIONS  OF  FORMER 
ENMITY  BEING  ALLAYED,  WE  SHALL  WITH  TEN  TIMES 
REDOUBLED  TOKENS  OF  OUR  UNFEIGNED  RECONCILED 
LOVE,  SHOW  OURSELVES  EACH  TOWARD  THE  OTHER 
THE  SAME  WHICH  JOSEPH  AND  THE  BRETHREN  OF 
JOSEPH  WERE  AT  THE  TIME  OF  THEIR  INTERVIEW  IN 
EGYPT.  OUR  COMFORTABLE  EXPECTATION  AND  MOST 
THIRSTY  DESIRE  WHEREOF  WHAT  MAN  SOEVER 
AMONGST  YOU  SHALL  ANY  WAY  HELP  TO  SATISFY  (aS 
WE  MAY  TRULY  HOPE  THERE  IS  NO  ONE  AMONGST  YOU 
BUT  SOME  WAY  OR  OTHER  WILL),  THE  BLESSINGS  OF 
THE  GOD  OF  PEACE,  BOTH  IN  THIS  WORLD  AND  IN  THE 
WORLD  TO  COME,  BE  UPON  HIM  MORE  THAN  THE  STARS 
OF  THE  FIRMAMENT  IN  NUMBER.” — Preface  to 
Hool(ers  Ecclesiastical  Polit}^,  Ch  xi,  4. 


The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 


LECTURE  I. 

THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 

I.  A Notable  Prophecy. 

II.  Repubiicanism  the  Basis. 


III.  The  Apostolic  Succession. 


“This  church  does  not  seek  to  absorb  other 

COMMUNIONS,  BUT  RATHER,  CO-OPERATING  WITH  THEM 
ON  THE  BASIS  OF  A COMMON  FAITH  AND  ORDER,  TO 
DISCOUNTENANCE  SCHISM,  TO  HEAL  THE  WOUNDS  OF 
THE  BODY  OF  CHRIST,  AND  TO  PROMOTE  THE  CHARITY 
WHICH  IS  THE  CHIEF  OF  CHRISTIAN  GRACES  AND  THE 
VISIBLE  MANIFESTATION  OF  CHRIST  TO  THE  WORLD.” 
— From  the  Declaration  of  the  Home  of  Bishops  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  at  Chicago  in  1 886,  made  in 
connection  with  the  promulgation  of  the  “ Quadrilateral  ” 
Overture  on  Church  Union. 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


I. 

A NOTABLE  PROPHECY. 

The  world  will  never  be  converted  by  a 
disunited  Church.”  In  this  generation,  no 
sentence  in  any  language,  has  been  quoted 
more  frequently,  and  in  so  many  tongues,  or  has  burned 
itself  more  deeply  into  the  hearts  of  the  followers  of  the 
Lord  Jesus. 

This  epoch-making  utterance  did  not  immediately  secure 
unanimous  consent  to  the  momentous  truth  to  which  it  gave 
expression.  On  the  contrary,  like  all  prophecies  of  past 
ages,  which  contained  the  seed  of  a mighty  revolutionary 
growth,  it  was,  at  first,  rejected  by  the  great  majority. 
But  now,  there  probably  is  not  a single  foreign,  Protestant 
missionary  of  as  much  as  three  years’  experience  In  the 
field,  who  does  not  often  earnestly  pray  for  the  unification 
of  the  home  Churches.  For,  as  time  goes  on,  all  such  mis- 
sionaries realize  that  one  of  the  greatest  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  the  success  of  their  evangelistic  endeavors  is,  “ our 
unhappy  divisions.” 

Yet  the  noble,  heroic  souls  who  are  bearing  the  burden 
and  heat  of  the  day  in  the  foreign  mission  fields,  will  have 


76 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


to  wait  for  the  answer  to  their  prayer,  until  we  at  home 
shall  see  and  remedy  the  folly  of  our  sectarian  divisions. 
Thank  God,  the  signs  of  the  time  indicate  that  the  prayers 
for  unity  by  the  heroes  and  heroines  of  the  foreign  mis- 
sion field,  of  whom  the  world  is  not  worthy,  will  be  an- 
swered. Everywhere,  nowhere  more  than  in  the  United 
States,  the  leaders  in  the  Churches  are  seeing  and  acknowl- 
edging the  unwisdom  of  the  existing  divisions  of  Protes- 
tant Christians. 

The  change  of  attitude,  in  both  theory  and  practice, 
towards  sectarianism,  which  has  taken  place  within  the 
quarter  of  a century,  since  the  making  of  this  now  famous 
prophecy,  will  be  regarded  by  all  future  generations  as  a 
most  notable  event  in  the  progress  of  civilization.  I give 
the  eloquent  passage  from  which  this  prophecy  is  quoted: 

“ If  it  be  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  represent  her  Lord 
among  men,  and  if  she  faithfully  performs  that  duty,  it 
follows  by  an  absolutely  irresistible  necessity  that  the 
unity  exhibited  in  His  Person  must  appear  in  her.  She 
must  not  only  be  one,  but  visibly  one  in  some  distinct  and 
appreciable  sense,  in  such  a sense  that  men  shall  not  need 
to  be  told  of  it,  but  shall  themselves  see  and  acknowledge 
that  her  unity  is  real. 

“No  doubt  such  unity  may  be,  and  is,  consistent  with 
great  variety,  with  variety  in  the  dogmatic  expression  of 
Christian  truth,  in  regulations  for  Christian  government, 
in  forms  of  Christian  worship,  and  in  the  exhibition  of 
Christian  life.  It  is  unnecessary  to  speak  of  these  things 
now.  Variety  and  the  right  to  differ  have  many  advo- 


A notable  prophecy. 


77' 


cates.  We  have  rather  at  present  to  think  of  unity  and 
the  obligation  to  agree.  As  regards  these,  it  can  hardly 
be  denied  that  the  Church  of  our  time  is  flagrantly  and 
disastrously  at  fault.  The  spectacle  presented  by  her  to 
the  world  is  in  direct  and  palpable  contradiction  to  the 
unity  of  the  Person  of  her  Lord;  and  she  would  at  once 
discover  its  sinfulness  were  she  not  too  exclusively  occu- 
pied with  the  thought  of  positive  action  on  the  world,  in- 
stead of  remembering  that  her  primary  and  most  important 
duty  is  to  afford  to  the  world  a visible  representation  of 
her  Exalted  Head. 

“ In  all  her  branches,  indeed,  the  beauty  of  unity  is 
enthusiastically  talked  of  by  her  members,  and  not  a few 
are  never  weary  of  describing  the  precious  ointment  in 
which  the  Psalmist  beheld  a symbol  of  the  unity  of  Israel. 
Others,  again,  alive  to  the  uselessness  of  talking  where 
there  is  no  corresponding  reality,  seek  comfort  in  the 
thought  that  beneath  all  the  divisions  of  the  Church  there 
is  a unity  which  she  did  not  make,  and  which  she  cannot 
unmake.  Yet,  surely,  in  the  light  of  the  truth  now  before 
us,  we  may  well  ask  whether  either  the  talking  or  the  sug- 
gested comfort  brings  us  nearer  a solution  of  our  difficul- 
ties. The  one  is  so  meaningless  that  the  very  lips  which 
utter  it  might  be  expected  to  refuse  their  office.  The 
other  is  true,  although,  according  as  it  is  used,  it  may 
either  be  a stimulus  to  amendment  or  a pious  platitude; 
generally  it  is  the  latter. 

“ But  neither  the  words  about  the  beauty  of  unity,  nor 
the  fact  of  an  invisible  unity,  avail  to  help  us.  What 


78 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


the  Church  ought  to  possess  is  a unity  which  the  eye  can 
see.  If  she  is  to  be  a witness  to  her  Risen  Lord,  she 
must  do  more  than  talk  of  unity,  more  than  console  herself 
with  the  hope  that  the  world  will  not  forget  the  invisible 
bond  by  which  it  is  pleaded  that  all  her  members  are 
bound  together  into  one.  Visible  unity  in  one  form  or 
another  is  an  essential  mark  of  her  faithfulness. 

“ The  world  will  never  be  converted  by  a disunited 
Church.  Even  Bible  circulation  and  missionary  exertion 
upon  the  largest  scale  will  be  powerless  to  convert  it, 
unless  they  are  accompanied  by  the  strength  which  unity 
alone  can  give.  Let  the  Church  of  Christ  once  feel,  in 
any  measure  corresponding  to  its  importance,  that  she  is 
the  representative  of  the  Risen  Lord,  and  she  will  no 
longer  be  satisfied  with  mere  outward  action.  She  will 
see  that  her  first  and  most  imperative  duty  is  to  heal  her- 
self, that  she  may  be  able  to  heal  others  also.” — Dr. 
Milligan,  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  pp.  199-202. 


IL 

REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 

I. 

The  churches  can  never  be  brought  together 
on  any  but  a very  broad  basis  of  doctrine  and 
government.  ‘ Any  other  basis  has  been  rendered 
impossible  by  the  multitudes  of  converts  that  have  been 
made  throughout  Christendom  by  the  expert  historical 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


79 


authorities  who  are  working  in  the  field  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity. These,  with  a remarkable  unanimity,  represent 
that  the  Divine  Layman  did  not  teach  a formal  system 
of  theology,  or  appoint  a Sacerdotal,  or  even  an  official 
Ministry,  or  organize  a Church  or  institute  Sacraments. 

By  the  light  of  the  science  of  historical  criticism  many 
in  all  the  Churches,  not  excepting  even  the  Roman  Church, 
are  seeing  that  the  Christian  ministry,  the  Christian  church, 
the  Christian  scriptures,  the  Christian  creeds,  even  the 
Christian  sacraments  and,  of  course,  all  organizations  of 
Christians  into  Churches,  with  their  respective  systems  of 
theology  and  government,  have  come  into  being  not  as  the 
result  of  God  the  Son’s  decree,  but  God  the  Father’s 
providence,  and  God  the  Holy  Spirit’s  influence. 

Christianity,  as  we  know  it,  is,  then,  the  outcome  of 
evolutionary  processes,  due  to  the  co-operative  efforts  of 
God  with  Christian  men  and  women  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  new  conditions,  as  they  have  arisen  through  the 
whole  course  of  our  era.  These  efforts  with  the  read- 
justments and  reorganizations,  inevitably  resulting  from 
them,  are  destined  to  continue  until  the  end  of  time. 

There  must  be  room  in  the  future  national  Church,  if 
ever  we  are  to  have  such  a Church,  for  many  men  and 
women  of  many  minds,  holding  to  many  degrees  of 
Sacerdotal  “ Catholicism  ” and  also  to  many  degrees  of 
Republican  Protestantism.  The  Church  of  the  Future 
must  be  comprehensive  enough  to  include  those  who,  while 
holding  to  the  supernaturalness  of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  the 
effect  of  His  Incarnation,  yet  insist  upon  the  naturalness 


80 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Ministry,  and  of  the  Sacraments, 
and  of  the  Bible. 

Room  enough  and  to  spare  there  certainly  must  be  for 
those  who  in  their  view  of  God’s  mercy  are  Armenians, 
Calvinists,  or  Universalists.  The  Roman,  Zwinglian  and 
Lutheran  doctrines  of  the  Sacraments  must  alike  be  toler- 
ated in  that  Church.  This  is  also  true  of  the  distinctive 
doctrines  of  the  Baptists,  Methodists  and  Adventists.  In 
short,  the  Church  of  the  Future  must  be  comprehensive 
enough  to  contain  all  the  orthodox  Churches,  that  is  the 
Churches  which  accept  Jesus  as  the  God-Man  Saviour  of 
the  world. 

No  existing  system  of  theology  or  of  ecclesiastical 
government  can  without  great  modification  become  the 
basis  of  Church  union.  The  theology  and  government 
of  the  Church  of  the  United  States,  as  of  all  national 
Churches,  will  represent  a new  development  of  a living 
Christianity,  even  as  the  theologies  and  governments  of 
all  other  Churches  which  have  attained  any  considerable 
size  or  age  represent  such  a development. 

The  Christians  of  our  day  and  of  future  generations 
have  just  as  much  right  to  a restatement  of  “ the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,”  and  to  a reorganization  of  Christ’s 
Church,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  cannot  prevail, 
a restatement  and  reorganization  that  are  in  accord  with 
their  convictions  and  preferences,  as  the  Christians  of  past 
generations  had  to  the  restatements  and  reorganizations 
which  have  occurred  from  time  to  time. 

In  all  that  I have  to  say  in  these  lectures  I proceed 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


81 


upon  the  religious  hypothesis  that  God  still  lives  in 
heaven;  that  there  is  a living  Divine  Jesus  at  His  right 
hand;  that  the  Holy  Ghost  still  proceeds  from  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  and  is  just  as  really  present,  and  just  as  much 
alive  in  the  world  to-day  as  He  was  on  Pentecost;  that 
the  world  has  never  had  more  Christians  who  are  energized 
by  an  awakened  and  a developing  Christ  life  than  it  has 
at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century;  that  the  Chris- 
tians of  this  generation  do  not  constitute  dead  Churches, 
and  that,  therefore,  since  we  have,  even  though  in  earthen 
vessels,  the  Divine  life  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
be  bound,  hand  and  foot,  by  the  precedents  of  the  dead 
ages. 

Let  us  charitably  hope  that  they  of  past  generations  did 
their  duty  as  best  they  could,  in  that  state  of  life  unto 
which  it  pleased  God  to  call  them,  and  that,  since  they 
have  been  gathered  to  their  fathers,  light  perpetual  has 
been  shining  upon  them.  In  the  past  each  generation  in 
its  turn  wisely  and  necessarily  built  largely  upon  the  foun- 
dation of  preceding  generations ; but  each  built,  if  it  acted 
wisely,  and  worked  efficiently,  chiefly  for  its  own  present 
and  immediate  future,  without  a slavish  reference  to  what 
its  predecessors  had  done. 

We  too,  not  only  have  a perfect  right  to  build  in  ac- 
cordance with  our  judgment  and  ideals;  but  this  is  what 
we  must  do,  if  we  would  fulfill  the  most  glorious  mission 
that  has  ever  been  entrusted  to  any  people  in  all  the  cen- 
turies that  have  come  and  gone  since  man  appeared  on  the 
earth. 


tHE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


II. 

It  is  the  object  of  this  lecture  to  show  that  the  only  basis 
upon  which  the  Churches  can  come  together  into  the  unity 
of  which  the  Lord  Jesus  prophesied,  for  which  He  prayed, 
eind  upon  which  He  hinged  the  salvation  of  the  world  is 
the  basis  of  Gospel  Republicanism  of  the  purest  type, 
and  that  the  selection  of  this  basis  for  Church  union  is 
justified  by  the  history  of  organic  Christianity. 

Since  the  rise  of  the  science  of  historical  criticism,  the 
history  of  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  the  Christian 
religion  has  been  largely  rewritten.  Let  me  give  expres- 
sion to  the  conviction  that  the  time  will  come  when  the 
great  biblical  arid  historical  critics  of  the  nineteenth 
and  twentieth  centuries  will  by  common  consent  be 
placed  on  the  same  footing  with  the  illustrious  reformers 
of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  as  being 
among  the  greatest  benefactors  that  God,  in  His  merciful 
Providence,  has  raised  up  to  our  race.  These  reformers 
and  critics,  having,  abandoned  Sacerdotalism,  have  now 
for  several  generations  been  laying  the  foundation  of 
Republicanism  upon  which  alone  Christianity  can  be  re- 
formed, reorganized  and  unified  to  the  degree  which  is 
necessary  to  its  universal  extension  and  complete  develop- 
ment. 

It  would  be  difficult  for  the  busy  man,  who  has  not 
traversed  the  ground  for  himself,  and  who  by  the  reading 
of  three  or  four  hours  would  know  the  generally  accepted 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


83 


facts  and  prevailing  opinions  respecting  the  Christian 
ministry,  which  were  held  by  the  leaders  among  the  re- 
formers and  which  are  held  by  the  chief  of  modern  his- 
torical authorities,  to  discover  a better  statement  of  them 
in  the  whole  of  current  literature  than  he  will  find  in  the 
Introduction  and  Appendix  of  this  book. 

Dr.  George  Williamson  Smith’s  enviable  reputation  for 
learning  and  conservatism  will,  of  course,  give  much 
weight  to  his  contribution  to  this  volume. 

In  the  Appendix  by  “ Anglican  Presbyter,”  which 
alone  would  merit  for  its  anonymous  author  the  distinc- 
tion of  being  a learned  and  exact  historical  critic,  will  be 
found  citations,  with  the  chapter  and  verse,  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  historical  experts  which  strongly  reinforce  the 
doctrinal  and  historical  basis  upon  which  has  been  built 
the  superstructure  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 
His  examination  of  the  authorities  on  both  sides  of  the 
whole  vexed  question  of  Episcopacy,  as  a factor  in  the 
great  problem  of  Church  unity,  is  at  once  exceedingly 
comprehensive  and  minute,  as  well  as  almost  resistlessly 
conclusive.  Bishop  Gore,  whose  praise  is  in  all  the 
Churches,  is  by  common  consent  the  greatest  of  living 
champions  on  behalf  of  Sacerdotalism.  ‘‘  Anglican  Pres- 
byter ” not  only  covers  the  representations  of  the  distin- 
guished Bishop’s  latest  book,  “ The  Christian  Ministry 
and  Church  Unity,”  but  also  even  the  most  noteworthy 
among  the  very  scraps  of  ‘‘  Catholic  ” literature  as  they 
have  appeared  in  newspapers  to  the  present  date. 

If  after  studying  the  Introduction  and  Appendix  of 


84 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


this  book,  any  reader  desires  further  assurance  that  the 
statements  upon  which  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union 
is  based  will  endure  the  strongest  light  of  modern  histor- 
ical criticism,  I refer  him  to  Bishop  Lightfoot’s  “Chris- 
tian Ministry.”  This  inexpensive  and  easily  accessible 
work  is,  I hesitate  not  to  say,  altogether  the  most  notable 
contribution  to  the  subject  that  has  ever  been  made  by  a 
representative  of  the  Anglican  Communion. 

I offer  a friendly  challenge  to  any  Sacerdotalist  to  show 
that  the  representations  of  this  book  concerning  the  origin 
and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry  are  inconsistent 
with  those  of  modern  scholarship.  Even  the  concessions 
of  the  greatest  authorities  on  the  Sacerdotal  side.  Bishop 
Gore  and  Professor  Moberly,  are  such  as  to  establish  at 
least  the  two  chief  premises  upon  which  my  conclusions 
are  based : ( 1 ) the  universality  of  the  Christian  priest- 
hood, and  (2)  the  evolution,  instead  of  devolution  of  the 
Christian  church  and  ministry. 

Some  have  thought  that  the  use  of  the  words  “ Republi- 
can ” and  “ Republicanism,”  for  the  embodiment  of  the 
Gospel  principle  upon  which  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  is  based,  is  not  felicitous.  They  think  that  some 
such  word  as  “ Protestant  ” or  phrase  as,  “ the  Protestant 
doctrine;”  or,  if  a political  terminology  must  be  used  to 
express  a religious  idea,  it  should  be  the  more  conservative 
one,  “ Democracy,”  or  the  phrase,  “ Democratic  prin- 
ciples.” I concede  that  the  terms  “ Republican  ” and 
“ Republicanism,”  do  not  fully  serve  my  purpose,  but 
after  carefully  considering  the  question  it  seemed  to  me 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


85 


that  they  would  do  so  better  than  any  other  words  that 
could  be  fixed  upon. 

The  difficulty  is  not  that  “ Republicanism,”  stands  for 
too  much  of  the  leveling  principle,  but  that  it  is  not  large 
enough  to  express  the  whole  of  this  many  sided  truth  of 
the  Gospel.  What  is  needed  is  a word  the  contents  of 
which  would  be  equivalent  to  all  that  is  contained  in  the 
terms.  Republican,  Democratic,  Protestant  and  Modern. 
Inability  to  find  or  to  coin  such  a word,  obliged  me  to 
get  on  as  well  as  possible  with  a confessedly  inadequate 
terminology.  If  only  it  will  enable  me  to  impress  upon 
the  minds  of  those  who  read  this  book  the  utterly  impos- 
sible and  hopeless  character  of  any  plan  for  Church  union 
which  is  based  upon  the  principles  of  Imperial  Sacerdo- 
talism rather  than  upon  Republican  Protestantism,  the  end 
which  I have  in  view  will  be  accomplished. 

III. 

In  all  discussions  of  the  momentous  question  of  how 
to  secure  the  unification  of  Christendom  that  is  necessary 
to  the  evangelization  of  the  world,  which,  to  use  the  apt 
phraseology  of  the  Bishop  of  New  York,  is  “ the  ques- 
tion de  profundis,”  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  there 
are  three  things  relating  to  it  which  are  settled. 

1 . The  first  of  these  settled  things  is  the  fact  that 
Church  union  can  not  be  secured  by  absorption.  The 
Churches  being  organically  developed  and  crystallized, 
and  being  filled  with  the  dominant  and  growing  spirit  of 


86 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


Republicanism,  as  they  are,  the  idea  that  unity  will  be 
brought  about  as  the  result  of  a merging  process,  by  which 
one  ecclesiastical  body  will  organically  associate  with  it- 
self all  the  other  Churches,  can  never  be  realized.  From 
the  historical  point  of  view  the  Church  of  Rome  alone 
could  be  looked  to  with  any  degree  of  hopefulness  for  such 
an  organic  unity;  but,  instead  of  advancing  towards  the 
goal  of  all  comprehension  set  for  herself,  she  is  receding 
from  it  with  astonishing  rapidity.  According  to  the  show- 
ing of  the  painstaking  statistician  Joseph  McCabe,  in  his 
book  “ The  Decay  of  the  Church  of  Rome,”  within  the 
last  one  hundred  years  the  Roman  Church  has  lost,  by 
desertion,  at  least  80,000,000  of  her  adherents.  This 
showing  has  not  been  successfully  controverted  though  it 
was  made  more  than  a year  ago. 

There  is,  perhaps,  a sense  in  which  it  may  be  said  that 
the  unification  of  Christendom  will  be  brought  about  as 
the  result  of  a swallowing  and  absorbing  process.  But 
in  that  sense,  quite  contrary  to  the  program  of  which  we 
are  speaking.  Sacerdotal  ” Catholicism  ” will  be  swal- 
lowed by  Republican  Protestantism.  It  would,  however, 
be  better  to  abandon  the  figure,and  to  express  the  truth  of 
which  I am  speaking,  by  saying  that  Sacerdotal  ” Cathol- 
icism,” which  belongs  to  the  darkness  of  the  Mediaeval 
ages  will  disappear  before  the  light  of  Republican  Prot- 
estantism, as  night  gives  place  to  day  before  the  rising  sun. 

It  would  be  contrary  to  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Republican  Protestantism  to  bring  about  the  union  of  the 
Churches  by  a swallowing  and  absorbing  process,  for  this 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


87 


figure  embodies  the  Sacerdotal  or  Imperial,  “ Catholic  ” 
principle.  The  Protestant  principle  has  its  embodiment 
in  the  idea  of  a Republican  federation.  While  the  world 
stands,  Christendom  will  never  be  unified  until  the  Sacer- 
dotal “ Catholic  ” or  Roman  program  of  an  Imperial 
swallowing  gives  way  to  the  Protestant  program  of  a 
Republican  federation. 

Sacerdotal  “ Catholicism  ” must  break  down  before 
Republican  Protestantism,  because  its  basic  principle  is 
contrary  to  the  distinctive,  fundamental  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, such  as:  the  Incarnation,  the  Fatherhood  of  God 
and  the  Brotherhood  of  man. 

The  principle  of  Sacerdotal  “ Catholicism  ” is  also  ir- 
reconcilable with  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
Our  Saviour  prophetically  prayed  that  His  divided  fol- 
lowers might  be  one,  even  as  He  and  the  Father  are  one, 
that  the  world  might  believe  in  His  mission  to  it.  We  do 
not  know  concerning  the  mystery  of  the  unity  of  the  Tri- 
une Godhead,  but  it  is  not  the  Christian  doctrine  that  the 
Divine  Personalities  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
are  absorbed  in  the  Personality  of  the  Father. 

St.  Paul  teaches  us  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  to 
be  that  of  a Republican  federation,  for  it  is,  according  to 
his  doctrine,  the  federated  unity  which  is  exhibited  so 
marvelously  by  the  human  body. 

The  sciences  of  chemistry,  geology,  biology,  and  as- 
tronomy show  that  the  universe,  in  all  its  parts  and  in  its 
entirety,  is  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  unity  of  a Re- 
publican federation, 


88 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


The  very  constitution  of  things,  both  spiritual  and  phys- 
ical, renders  it  inevitable  that  Sacerdotalism  in  the  Church 
of  which  Imperialism  in  the  State  is  the  counterpart,  must 
give  place  to  Republicanism.  The  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of 
the  Divine  right  of  a devoluted  priesthood  will  not  stand 
any  more  securely  than  the  Divine  right  of  a devoluted 
kingship.  The  doctrine  of  a devolutionary  ministerial 
authority  whether  in  State  or  Church  is  a baseless  tradi- 
tion and  superstition ; and  it  has  become  a hopeless  anach- 
ronism. 

Imperialism  in  civil  governments  and  Sacerdotalism  in 
ecclesiastical  governments  are  but  different  embodiments 
of  exactly  the  same  principle.  The  principles  of  Re- 
publicanism and  Imperialism  in  the  realm  of  government 
bear  the  relation  to  each  other  of  right  and  wrong.  As 
the  wrong  is  destined  to  give  way  before  the  right,  so 
Imperialism  must  inevitably  be  supplanted  by  Republi- 
canism. The  fall  of  Imperialism  in  the  State  renders 
absolutely  certain  the  fall  of  Sacerdotalism  in  the  Church. 

Under  the  Republican  conditions  now  prevailing,  and 
still  developing,  with  every  prospect  of  universality  and 
permanency,  the  only  reasonable  hope  for  the  unity  which 
will  enable  Christianity  to  go  into  all  the  world,  and  to 
let  its  light  shine,  is  centered  in  a federation  of  the 
Churches  under  the  leadership  of  a Common  Ministry 
which  will  unify  them,  in  some  such  way  as  the  American 
Colonies  were  unified  by  the  federation  which  resulted 
In  the  creation  of  the  United  States.  The  attainment  of 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


89 


organic  Christian  unity  in  any  other  way  than  that  of  a 
federation,  on  an  equal  footing,  of  the  racial,  national 
Churches,  has  become  an  utter  impossibility. 

The  federation  by  which  we  are  to  have  the  requisite 
Christian  unity,  cannot  be  accomplished  by  the  corporate 
surrender  proposed  by  the  Roman  Church,  and  by  a large 
and  Influential  school  in  the  Anglican  Church.  There 
are  two  reasons  for  holding  to  this  conclusion,  either  of 
which  is  in  itself  sufficient : ( 1 ) There  is  no  sectarian 
Church  which,  by  any  possible  influence,  can  be  brought 
to  the  point  of  allowing  itself  to  be  thus  swallowed,  and 
(2)  Upon  the  assumption  that  the  requisite  unity  must 
be  accomplished  by  a process  of  absorption,  there  is  no 
Church  that  would  be  equal  to  the  occasion. 

Bishop  Doane  recognized  the  impracticability  of  unity 
on  the  basis  of  absorption  when  in  1908  in  his  official 
address  to  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Albany  he 
said : 

“To  approach  the  great  Protestant  Churches  of  the 
world  with  the  statement  that  their  Ministries  are  unlaw- 
ful, is  to  propose  not  reunion,  but  absorption;  not  con- 
sideration, but  contempt.  If  one  may  quote  not  irrever- 
ently, the  rather  vulgar  saying  of  the  lamb  and  the  lion 
lying  down  together  with  the  lamb  inside,  it  is  just  this 
and  nothing  more,  and  leaves  us  in  an  attitude  of  antago- 
nism and  isolation,  which  is  perfectly  hopeless  and  futile.” 

In  order  that  we  Protestant  Episcopalians  may  arrive 
at  something  like  an  adequate  realization  of  the  crass 
absurdity  of  the  swallowing  and  absorbing  proposition,  let 


90 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


US  try  to  imagine  our  beloved  little  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  with,  say,  the  two 
great  American  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,  North 
and  South,  inside  of  it,  and,  then,  to  say  nothing  about 
others,  add  the  American  Baptist  Churches  and  the  Pres- 
byterian Churches! 

In  the  past  even  the  Roman  ecclesiastical  leviathan 
has  signally  failed  to  bring  about  unity  as  the  result  of 
a swallowing  policy ; and  she  is  cheered  by  no  prospect  of 
better  success  in  the  future.  Such  being  the  case,  with 
the  Roman  Church,  it  would  seem  to  be  useless  for  any 
other  ecclesiastical  organization  to  attempt  a similar  pro- 
gram for  the  unification  of  Christendom. 

2.  The  second  of  these  settled  things  is  that  an  Inter- 
Church  Episcopate  is  necessary  for  the  organic  unity  of 
Christendom.  In  this  age  of  centralization,  when  the 
principles  of  Episcopacy,  which  are  unity  and  superintend- 
ence under  one  headship,  are  wonderfully  consolidating  all 
other  departments  of  the  social  realm,  it  may  be  regarded 
as  settled  that  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  to  rest  a 
rational  hope  that  the  Churches  will  ever  be  brought  to- 
gether into  national  and  international  co-operative  confed- 
erations, without  an  Inter-Church  Episcopate.  As  well 
might  the  people  of  a nation  hope  for  efficiency  in  their 
army  without  generals  for  its  several  chief  divisions,  as 
for  the  Churches  of  a country  and  of  the  world,  to  expect 
to  accomplish  their  mighty  twofold  work  of  conversion 
and  culture  without  efficient  leadership. 

I am,  however,  far  from  contending  that  this  unifying. 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


91 


ministerial  embodiment  of  the  Episcopate  must  be  of  that 
type  which,  according  to  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine,  has  come 
down  to  us  as  the  result  of  a devolution  of  authority  from 
the  Lord  Jesus,  through  His  first  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors, in  an  unbroken  series  of  conveyances  effected  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands.  On  the  pure  Republican,  Protes- 
tant theory,  that  which  constitutes  the  indispensable  Episco- 
pate upon  which  the  unification  of  Christendom  is  depend- 
ent, is  an  efficient,  utilitarian  embodiment  of  the  eternal, 
basic  principles  of  Episcopacy,  which  principles  are  unity 
and  superintendence  under  one  headship.  It  might  there- 
fore, with  entire  indifference,  be  either  a modern  Episco- 
pate of  the  Methodist  or  United  Brethren  type,  or  a very 
old  Episcopate  of  the  Greek,  or  Roman,  or  Anglican  type. 
But  as  both  the  ancient  and  modem  Episcopates  exist, 
some  way  must  be  found  by  which  they  may  be  united  in 
a Common  Inter-Church  Ministry. 

It  has  come  to  be  almost  universally  admitted  that,  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  the  great  Roman  Communion,  organic 
Christianity,  for  the  lack  of  an  unifying  superintending 
headship,  is  far  behind  other  agencies  of  our  civiliza- 
tion. In  the  mammoth  establishments  which  have  been 
created  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  astonishing  demands 
for  locomotives  and  automobiles,  there  are  assembling 
rooms  in  which  all  parts  of  the  machines  are  gathered  and 
put  together,  until  they  are,  like  the  bodies  of  highly  or- 
ganized animals,  perfect  pieces  of  mechanism,  that  may 
be  used  with  marvelous  efficiency  in  accomplishing  the 
purposes  for  which  they  are  respectively  designed.  Prot- 


92 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


estantism  is  in  imperative  need  of  something  that  will  do 
for  it  what  is  done  in  the  assembling  rooms  of  great  manu- 
facturing concerns,  and  it  is  my  firm  belief  that  the  one 
and  only  thing  that  can  do  this  is  a Common  Inter-Church 
Ministry  of  the  Episcopal  type. 

It  appears  therefore  that  the  importance  which  in  my 
Plan  for  Church  Union,  1 am  attaching  to  the  Episcopate 
does  not  exceed  the  importance  which  is  attached  to  the 
same  thing  under  different  names  in  other  departments  of 
the  social  realm.  The  Father  of  a Family,  in  his  necessary 
administrative  prerogatives,  is  a Bishop.  The  King  or  the 
President  of  a State  is  a Bishop.  The  Superintendent  of 
a Public  School,  or  of  a Railway  system  is  a Bishop.  It 
IS  really  impossible  to  overestimate  the  important  and  indis- 
pensable character  of  the  Episcopate,  for  it  is  by  the  very 
constitution  of  the  social  realm  an  absolute  and  universal 
necessity. 

Thus  it  appears  that  no  great  organization  such  as  is 
contemplated  in  the  coming  together  of  the  Churches  into 
all  comprehensive  national  ecclesiastical  organizations,  and 
international  communions  and  confederations,  could  be 
brought  about  and  sustained  without  some  embodiment  of 
the  principles  of  unity  and  superintendence  under  one 
headship.  The  Episcopate  is  historically  the  ecclesias- 
tical embodiment  of  these  principles. 

There  is,  indeed,  a great  deal  of  really  excellent  and 
highly  efficient  organization  in  the  several  divisions  of 
Protestantism.  But  speaking  of  Protestantism  as  a whole, 
it  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  any  organization  at  all. 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


93 


Among  people  from  whose  eyes  the  scales  of  sectarian 
prejudice  have  fallen,  the  marvel  of  the  age  is  that  the 
unassociated  Protestant  sects  are  accomplishing  so  much. 
Hence  it  has  come  about  that  the  leaders,  both  among 
the  Clergy  and  Laity,  in  all  our  Protestant  Churches  are 
insisting  that  the  ecclesiastical  fragments  must  be  in  some 
way  gathered  together  and  united  into  one  harmonious  and 
co-operative  body.  The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union 
is  a definite  and  practical  suggestion  as  to  how  this  may 
be  done. 

3.  There  is  at  least  one  more  item  among  the  settled 
things  that  must  be  taken  account  of  by  those  who  would 
make  any  contribution  towards  the  solution  of  the  problem 
of  problems  created  by  the  divisions  among  Christians: 
All  questions  having  an  important  bearing  upon  the  prob- 
lem, such  as  those  connected  with  the  Ministry,  govern- 
ment and  doctrines  of  the  Church  in  New  Testament  and 
sub-apostolic  times,  will  be  settled,  not  by  reference  to 
traditions  and  theories,  but  by  the  results  of  the  science 
of  historical  criticism.  I say  science,  because  historical 
criticism,  in  the  course  of  the  nineteenth  century,  reached 
the  degree  of  certitude  which  entitled  it  to  recognition  as 
one  of  the  sciences ; and  it  has  now  taken  its  place  among 
them  as  securely  as,  for  example,  the  science  of  geology, 
or  the  science  of  biology. 

We  live  in  an  age  which  is  as  pre-eminently  scientific 
as  it  is  Republican.  Our  age  is  scientific  because  it  is 
Republican.  The  reverse  of  this  is  also  true.  Science  is 


94 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


the  very  soul  of  Republicanism  in  State  and  Church,  as 
tradition  is  of  Imperialism  in  the  State  and  of  Sacerdotal- 
ism in  the  Church. 

He  who  now  stands  out  against  a conclusion  that  pre- 
vails among  those  who  are  expert  historical  critics,  occu- 
pies precisely  the  same  relative  attitude  as  does  one  who 
denies  a concensus  of  opinion,  as  it  is  held  by  expert  geol- 
ogists and  biologists. 

Therefore  in  all  attempts  to  solve  the  stupendous  and 
insistent  problem  arising  from  the  unhappy  divisions  among 
Christians,  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  solution 
lies  in  the  line  : ( 1 ) of  a preliminary.  Republican  federa- 
tion and  ultimate  reorganization,  resulting  from  evolution- 
ary processes  rather  than  of  an  Imperial  absorption:  (2) 
of  Episcopacy  rather  than  of  non-Episcopacy,  and  (3) 
of  Historical  Criticism  rather  than  of  Tradition. 

IV. 

May  I ask  the  reader  kindly  to  note  the  sense  in  which, 
throughout  this  book,  I use  the  term  “Catholic.”  “Ca- 
tholicism ” is,  according  to  my  use,  a synonym  of  “ Sacer- 
dotalism ” or  “ Priestism.”  There  are  two  conceptions  of 
Sacerdotalism,  the  official  conception  and  the  caste  con- 
ception, of  which  conceptions  Protestant  Sacerdotalism  is 
the  former,  and  Roman  or  Greek  Sacerdotalism  is  the 
latter. 

Their  office  of  Institution  is  authority  for  Protestant 
Episcopalians  to  speak  of  the  Christian  ministry  as  being 
Sacerdotal  in  the  official  sense  of  the  term,  but  no  such 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


95 


Episcopalian  will  contend,  certainly  he  will  not  do  so 
successfully,  that  the  doctrinal  statements  of  his  Church 
justify  him  in  holding  the  Ministry  to  be  a Sacerdotal 
caste  in  the  sense  in  which  the  representatives  of  the  Greek 
and  Roman  Churches  generally  hold  their  Ministries  to 
be  a caste. 

References  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Anglican  Churches 
as  being  Sacerdotal,  in  the  right,  Protestant,  official  sense 
of  the  term  are  so  rare  in  their  legislative  and  doctrinal 
literatures,  and  such  references  are  so  very  apt  to  be  mis- 
understood, that  the  propriety  of  making  them  at  all  is 
doubtful,  and,  for  one,  I avoid  doing  so.  In  limiting  the 
term  “ Catholic  ” chiefly  to  the  Roman  and  Greek 
Churches,  I follow  the  example  of  Lightfoot,  Hamack 
and  Ramsay.  These  distinguished  authorities  and  others, 
of  their  rank,  never  identify  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican 
Communion  with  Catholicism.  In  their  writings  these 
Churches  are  always  spoken  of  as  Protestant. 

I am  anxious  to  make  it  clear  that  what  I say  in  this 
book  against  Sacerdotalism  is  not  in  opposition  to  Prot- 
estant, that  is  official  Sacerdotalism,  but  against  Roman, 
caste  Sacerdotalism. 

There  are  “ Catholic,”  Sacerdotal,  Priestly  parties  in 
all  the  Churches  which  constitute  the  national  branches 
of  the  Anglican  Communion  to  which  the  Episcopal 
Church  belongs. 

Nor  are  the  great  Lutheran,  Congregational,  Presby- 
terian and  Methodist  Churches  without  ‘‘  Catholic  ” 
parties.  Wherever  Sacerdotalism  is  found  associated  with 


96 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


primitive  Christianity,  investigation  will  show  it  to  have 
been  brought  over  either  directly  from  Heathenism,  its 
native  habitat,  or  indirectly  from  Judaism,  not  from  the 
Gospel  religion  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  during  the  Dark  and 
Middle  ages,  the  principles  of  Sacerdotal,  Imperial 
“ Catholicism  ” as  embodied  in  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Churches  prevailed  universally  and  exclusively.  This 
is  a mistake.  During  the  greater  part  of  those  periods  of 
transition  from  the  pagan  to  the  Christian  civilization,  the 
non-Sacerdotal,  Republican  principle  of  Protestantism 
had  a powerful  embodiment  in  monasticism.  So  true  is 
this  that  I would  much  prefer  to  undertake  to  support  the 
contention  that  the  Protestant  Churches  are  a continuation 
of  the  monasteries  than  that  the  Sacerdotal,  Imperial 
Greek  and  Roman  Churches  are  a continuation  of  the 
New  Testament  and  sub-apostolic  Churches.  The  great 
movement  in  the  Roman  Church  which  the  Modernists 
have  set  on  foot  and  which  is  gradually  gathering  force  is 
a Protestant  movement. 

The  essential  characteristic  of  all  forms  of  “ Catholi- 
cism ” is  its  Sacerdotal,  or  Priestly,  or  caste  conception  of 
the  Christian  ministry  and  the  unnatural  character  which 
it  attaches  to  the  Christian  sacraments  and  to  the  benefits 
annexed  to  them.  The  essential  characteristic  of  Prot- 
estantism is  its  Republican  conception  of  the  Christian 
ministry  and  the  natural  character  which  it  attaches  to 
the  Christian  sacraments  and  to  the  benefits  annexed  to 
them. 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


97 


Our  plan  for  this  book  provides  for  the  special  consid- 
eration of  the  Sacerdotal  doctrines  concerning : ( 1 ) the 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry;  and  (2) 
the  unnatural  conception  of  the  character  and  benefits  of 
the  Christian  sacraments.  The  first  of  these  cardinal  doc- 
trines of  Sacerdotalism  will  be  treated  in  the  following 
section  of  this  lecture  under  the  title,  “ The  Apostolic 
Succession;”  and  the  second,  in  the  last  section  of  Lecture 
III  which  is  entitled,  ” Grace  of  Sacraments.”  Here  we 
are  especially  concerned  to  make  it  appear  by  facts  and 
arguments  of  a more  general  character  that  the  Republi- 
can, Protestant  doctrines  respecting  the  institutions  of 
Christianity  afford  the  only  basis  possible  for  Church 
union;  because  this  basis  is  perfectly  level  and  there  is  no 
reasonable  hope  that  the  Churches  will  ever  come  together 
on  any  except  such  a basis. 

Both  Episcopalian  and  Presbyterian  Sacerdotalists  hold 
that  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  are  such  on  account  of 
an  unbroken  series  of  ordinations,  through  which  minis- 
terial authority  has  been  handed  down,  and  the  historic 
continuity  of  the  Church  has  been  preserved  from  age  to 
age.  The  consistent  Sacerdotal  “ Catholic  ” maintains 
that  without  such  successors  of  the  Apostles  there  could 
be  no  true  Church  or  Sacraments  of  Christ,  and  conse- 
quently no  covenanted  Gospel  salvation. 

Protestants  generally  admit  that,  in  a broad  sense,  the 
Lord  planted  a Church,  but  they  insist  that,  not  the  Apos- 
tles only,  but  all  His  disciples,  whether  Ministers  or 


98 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


People,  constitute  Its  seed,  the  humblest  layman  or  lay- 
woman  being  essentially  and  potentially  just  as  really  and 
truly  a seed,  or  the  seed  of  the  Church  as  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  the  Pope  of  Rome,  or  St.  Peter  himself. 

The  Lord  Jesus  promised  that  whenever,  and  wherever 
two  or  three  of  His  faithful  followers,  being  of  one  accord, 
find  themselves  together  in  His  name,  then,  and  there  He 
would  be  in  the  midst  of  them.  Many,  probably  the  ma- 
jority among  Protestants  interpret  this  promise  to  mean 
that  any  two  or  three  godly  Christians,  men  or  women, 
could  start  a Church,  which  would  be  just  as  real,  and, 
other  things  being  equal,  just  as  good  a Church  of  Christ 
as  the  one  which  St.  Paul  himself  founded  at  Corinth; 
and  that  those  whom  they  selected  and  appointed  as 
Ministers  to  shepherd  them,  and  to  conduct  their  worship 
might  celebrate  all  the  Sacraments  as  validly  as  any  which 
the  great  Apostle  administered. 

In  whomsoever,  then,  faith  in  Christ  as  God  Incarnate 
exists,  in  him  is  the  seed  of  the  Church.  Such  an  one, 
even  though  he  had  not  been  baptized  might,  if  necessity 
required,  administer  the  Sacrament  to  himself  and  to 
others  as  converts  were  made.  Such  an  Apostle  and  his 
disciples  might  constitute  a Church,  which  would  be  just 
as  good  a Church  as  any  that  has  ever  existed,  and  in 
which  all  the  Christian  sacraments  would  be  administered 
as  regularly  and  validly  as  they  have  ever  been  adminis- 
tered in  any  Church.  This  is  the  pure  Republican, 
Protestant  doctrine  concerning  the  Christian  church, 
ministry  and  sacraments;  and  it  is  the  only  doctrine  that 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


99 


can  endure  the  light  of  historical  criticism.  The  Church 
of  the  Future  must  have  plenty  of  room  for  those  who  hold 
to  this  doctrine;  and  it  constitutes  the  basis  of  the  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union. 


V. 

According  to  the  Protestant  theory,  then,  the  seed  of 
the  Church  and  its  continuity  are  in  the  People  as  a whole, 
not  in  the  Ministry  alone.  The  Protestant  doctrine  makes 
no  essential'  distinction  between  Ministers  and  People. 
What  difference  exists  is  purely  of  an  official  character, 
corresponding  exactly  to  the  difference  between  a citizen 
and  an  officer  of  a State. 

Christian  ministers  cannot  properly  be  distinguished 
from  the  people,  as  forming  a separate  and  distinct  part 
of  the  Church,  having,  by  reason  of  ordination,  inherent 
powers  which  are  different  from  any  which  the  people  pos- 
sess. In  reality  Christian  ministers  are  only  the  servants 
of  Christian  people.  They  do  not  represent  God  to  the 
people,  but  the  people  to  God.  God’s  representatives  to 
the  people,  whether  collectively  or  individually,  are  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  Prophets,  not  Priests. 

According  to  the  Republican  theory  of  the  Christian 
ministry.  President  Taft,  and  Bishop  Tuttle  occupy 
essentially  the  same  relationship  respectively  to  the  people 
of  these  United  States  and  the  members  of  the  Anglo- 
American  Church.  Both  men  are  by  common  consent 


100 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


unique  personages,  but,  still,  only  ordinary  men,  good  and 
great,  but,  yet,  mere  human  beings.  Moreover,  God  works 
through  both  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
Presiding  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
But  while  both  are  endowed  with  extraordinary  talents 
and  clothed  with  great  authority  and  honor,  there  is  noth- 
ing supernatural  about  them,  either  as  to  their  persons  or 
their  official  acts.  In  both  cases  the  people  can  if  they 
will  take  away  what  they  have  given  them.  The  doctrine, 
“ once  a Bishop  always  a Bishop  ” is  quite  as  fictitious  as 
would  be  the  doctrine,  “ once  a President  always  a 
President.” 

We  hear  a great  deal  from  those  of  the  Sacerdotal 
way  of  thinking  about  different  orders  in  the  Christian 
ministry.  There  may  be  three  or  more  orders  in  the  sense 
of  grades  in  the  official  Ministry  of  any  Church.  But  the 
ministerial  character  is  an  universal  possession  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  said  to  belong  to  the  official  any  more  than 
to  the  unofficial  Ministry.  There  being  only  one  ministerial 
character,  which  is  common  to  all  representatives  of 
Christianity,  there  is,  of  course,  but  one  order  in  the  sense 
of  character  in  the  Ministry.  Every  representative  of  the 
human  race  is  potentially  a member  of  it  and  every  bap- 
tized, if  not  indeed  every  believing  man,  woman  and 
child,  is  actually  a member.  Bishops,  Priests  and  Dea- 
cons therefore  do  not  constitute  the  entire  Christian  minis- 
try, but  are  only  representatives  of  the  several  grades  in  the 
official  Ministry.  Many  Greek,  Roman  and  Anglican 
theologians  hold  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  do  not 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


101 


constitute  different  ministerial  offices,  but  only  grades  of 
the  one  office.  A Bishop  or  a Presbyter  does  not  differ 
from  a Deacon  except  only  that  he  is  a servant  of  the 
people  of  higher  grade. 

It  is  essential  to  right  conclusions  concerning  the  origin 
and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry  that  the  important 
fact  should  be  noted  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  word 
“ Priest  ” does  not  occur  in  connection  with  a Christian 
minister  of  any  grade.  The  chief  names  employed  in 
reference  to  the  Ministry  are  Apostles,  Prophets,  Evan- 
gelists, Pastors,  Teachers,  Bishops,  Elders  and  Deacons. 
The  titles.  Apostle,  meaning,  “ one  who  is  sent,”  and 
Elder,  meaning,  “ an  old  and  honored  man,”  refer  to  the 
different  grades  in  the  Ministry.  The  term  Bishop,  mean- 
ing, “ a superintendent,”  and  the  term  Deacon,  meaning, 
“ a server,”  were  not  at  first  titles  of  settled  offices  in  the 
Ministry,  but  designations  of  duties,  or  commissions,  or 
functions,  that  might  be  performed  quite  indifferently  by 
either  an  Apostle  or  a Presbyter,  but  which  generally  ap- 
pertained to  the  Presbyterial  office. 

It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  great  cause  of 
Christian  unity  that  it  should  be  clearly  realized  that, 
quite  contrary  to  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine,  the  Church  is 
inherent  in  the  People,  not  in  the  Ministry.  The  Church 
is  not  exclusively  in  any  Minister  or  Ministry  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Succession,  whether  that  succession  be  Episcopal  or 
Presbyterial,  but  is  equally  inherent  in  every  individual 
who  accepts  the  Divine-Human  Saviourship  of  the  Lord 
Jesus. 


103 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of 
Arkansas  can  no  more  truly  be  said  to  be  in  the  Bishop  of 
Arkansas,  than  the  State  of  Arkansas  can  be  said  to  be  in 
the  Governor  of  Arkansas.  The  Bishop  is,  in  every  sense 
of  the  term,  as  truly  the  servant  of  the  people  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Arkansas,  as 
the  Governor  is  the  servant  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Arkansas.  There  is  no  other  conception  of  the  Church 
and  her  Ministry,  even  as  there  is  no  other  conception  of 
the  State  and  her  Officers,  that  can  stand  in  the  light 
of  historical  criticism,  or  that  w^ill  not  be  swept  aside  by 
the  advancing  Republican  civilization.  Both  the  Ministry 
of  the  State  and  the  Church  are  “of  the  People,  by  the 
People,  for  the  People.” 

An  officer  whether  in  State  or  Church  is  a Minister 
or  servant  of  the  People.  It  is  true  that  both  are  alike 
the  Ministers  and  servants  of  God ; but  only  as  they  fulfill 
their  functions  as  servants  of  the  People  are  they  truly  the 
servants  of  God. 

In  so  far  as  the  official  acts  of  Ministers  are  in  opposition 
to  the  will  of  the  People,  they  are  usurpers  and  morally, 
they  are  as  irregular  as  would  be  the  same  acts  performed 
by  an  ordinary  citizen  of  the  State  or  member  of  the 
Church  concerned.  The  official  acts  of  a ministerial 
officer  in  State  or  Church  should  represent  the  people. 
The  Holy  Ghost  represents  God  in  the  conscience  of 
every  man. 

God’s  human  representatives  are  the  Prophets  whom 
He  makes  for  Himself.  God  is  as  likely  to  make  one 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


103 


of  His  Prophets  out  of  a shoe-cobbler  as  out  of  a Bishop. 
The  prophetic  office  and  the  ministerial  office  do  not,  as 
Sacerdotalists  would  have  us  believe,  generally  unite  in 
the  same  man.  Indeed,  it  seldom  happens  that  a high 
officer  in  State  or  Church  is  a great  civil  or  religious 
Prophet.  There  is  something  about  officialism  that  stifles 
the  spirit  and  freedom  of  the  Prophet,  and  it  is  seldom 
that  a political  or  religious  Prophet  of  first  rank  is  elected 
to  the  Presidency  or  the  Episcopate. 

The  representatives  of  the  official  Ministry  of  a Church 
are,  then,  servants  owing  their  distinctive  honor,  privileges 
and  authority  to  the  people,  just  as  the  officers  of  a State 
are  such  servants.  Protestants  will  not  tolerate  the  idea 
that  the  followers  of  Christ  are  divided  into  two  parts  by 
a ministerial  caste,  the  representatives  of  which  are  the 
inheritors  of  a devoluted,  independent,  personal  authority, 
upon  whose  ministrations  the  people  are  necessarily  de- 
pendent for  covenanted  salvation.  There  is  no  Minister  in 
the  person  of  any  human  being,  not  excepting  the  President 
of  the  United  States  or  the  Pope  of  the  Roman  Church, 
who  possesses  any  official  authority  or  power  which  is 
derived  from  a higher  source  than  the  will  of  the  people; 
except  in  so  far  as  Divine  providence  determines  the 
will  of  the  people.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  consist- 
ent Protestants  there  is  no  assurance  of  covenanted  salva- 
tion except  a conscience  void  of  offense  towards  God 
and  man  on  account  of  obedience  to  God’s  requirements, 
and  beyond  the  mediatorship  of  Christ  every  man  is  his 
own  Priest. 


104 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


Upon  the  Protestant  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  and  the  authority  of  her  ministry,  all  the 
Ministers  of  every  branch  of  the  Church  in  the  whole 
world  might  completely  die  out  and  yet  the  continuity  of 
the  Church  would  not  be  interrupted.  Each  of  the 
Churches  would  in  the  event  of  such  a catastrophe  proceed 
to  create  a new  Ministry;  and,  this  having  been  done. 
Churches  now  claiming  to  have  a Ministry  which  has  been 
derived  by  devolution  from  the  Lord  Jesus  and  His  first 
Apostles  would  then  have  as  good  a Ministry  as  they 
ever  had. 

That  Sacerdotal  “ Catholicism  ” of  the  Greek  and 
Roman  type  is  wrong  and  that  Republican  Protestantism 
IS  right  in  their  respective  tenets  will  be  evident  from  the 
following  facts: 

1 . Historic  “ Catholicism  ” of  which,  in  our  part  of 
the  world,  the  Roman  Church  is  the  chief  exponent,  has 
for  its  basis  a Sacerdotal  ministerial  caste  and  there  is  not 
a trace  of  such  a Ministry  in  the  New  Testament.  If  any 
Catholic  should  demand  proof  for  this  sweeping  state- 
ment, I refer  him  to  Bishop  Lightfoot’s  essay,  entitled, 
“ The  Christian  Ministry.” 

2.  Sacerdotalism  was  brought  into  the  Christian 
church  from  Judaism  and  Heathenism.  Even  Judaism 
imported  its  Sacerdotalism  from  Heathenism,  and  it  is 
probable  that  Heathen  Sacerdotalism  was  a development 
due  to  degeneration  and  corruption,  for  it  is  not  at  all 
likely  that  any  religion  started  out  with  Sacerdotalism  as 
its  basis. 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


105 


Indeed  the  founding  of  all  new  religions  and  the  re- 
forming of  all  old  religions  necessarily  were  Republican 
movements.  For,  on  the  one  hand  Republicanism  in  the 
State  and  Protestantism  in  the  Church,  which  in  both  cases, 
in  the  last  analysis,  represent  the  will  of  the  whole  people, 
is  the  embodiment  of  the  principle  of  development;  and 
on  the  other  hand.  Imperialism  in  the  State  and  Sacer- 
dotalism in  the  Church,  which  in  both  cases,  in  the  last 
analysis,  represent  the  will  of  the  ruling  caste,  is  the 
embodiment  of  the  principle  of  crystallization.  Both  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  religions,  between  which  there  is 
in  history  and  in  principle  a very  close  connection,  began, 
not  as  Sacerdotal,  but  as  Republican  or  Protestant  move- 
ments. 

Even  to  the  latest  day  the  Jewish  religion  was  in  its 
essential  character  an  ethical,  not  a Sacerdotal  religion. 
Sacerdotalism  had  to  do  with  the  outside  rather  than  the 
inside  of  the  Jewish  religion.  The  truth  of  this  observa- 
tion is  established  by  the  fact  that  the  religion  as  a whole 
was  so  little  affected  by  the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  the 
cessation  of  its  elaborate  sacrificial  system,  and  the  conse- 
quent rapid  decline  of  its  hierarchy.  The  Sacerdotalism 
of  the  Jews  was  the  outward  rather  than  the  inward  part 
of  their  religion.  It  may  be  likened  to  the  garments  which 
clothe  the  human  body  rather  than  to  the  flesh  and  blood 
and  bones  which  are  constituent  parts  of  the  body. 

All  this  is  even  more  true  of  Christianity  than  it  was 
of  Judaism.  Sacerdotalism  is  something  quite  exterior 
to  its  essential  nature.  Even  in  the  case  of  its  most  com- 


106 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


pletely  sacerdotalized  sect,  the  Church  of  Rome,  the 
great  Cathedral  of  St.  Peter  with  all  the  heads  of  the 
Roman  hierarchy,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  who  in- 
habit the  Eternal  City,  might,  either  by  a sudden  revolu- 
tion, or  gradual  evolution  cease  to  exist,  as  the  Temple 
and  hierarchy  of  Jerusalem  ceased  to  exist,  and  yet  even 
the  Roman  part  of  Christianity  would  reorganize  itself 
and  continue  on  almost  as  if  nothing  had  happened. 

3.  Sacerdotalism  in  the  Church  has  its  counterpart  in 
Imperialism  in  the  State.  In  the  State  Imperialism  is 
dying  out.  This  being  the  case,  it  may  be  almost  infal- 
libly concluded  that  Sacerdotalism  will  die  out  in  the 
Church.  For  in  their  government  Churches  have  always, 
in  the  long  run,  conformed  to  the  government  of  the 
States  in  which  they  have  flourished.  The  few  exceptions 
that  may  be  cited  are  neither  numerous  nor  persistent 
enough  to  disprove  the  rule. 

If,  as  we  have  shown,  Roman  Sacerdotalism  cannot 
maintain  itself,  what  ground  for  hope  is  there  that  Angli- 
can, or  any  other  Protestant  Sacerdotalism,  can  do  so? 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  Romanism  is  rapidly  losing  ground, 
how  short  sighted  it  would  be  for  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  to  allow  herself  to  be  led  by  her  Sacerdotal  party 
to  go  with  Roman  “ Catholicism  ” rather  than  to  continue 
on  with  Protestantism.  Why  should  we  identify  ourselves 
with  a lost  cause? 

The  Christians  of  the  United  States  are  divided  into 
two  sections.  On  the  one  hand  we  have  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  and  on  the  other  the  Protestant  Churches, 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


107 


The  division  to  which  the  Anglo-American  Church,  as 
an  ecclesiastical  organization,  belongs  is  clearly  deter- 
mined by  her  doctrinal  standards  and  also  by  her  very 
name.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  not  “The  American  Catholic  Church.” 


VI. 

If  the  people  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  which  the  Minis- 
try seems  to  be  everything,  were  to  rise  up  in  their  might, 
they  could  sweep  the  whole  Imperial  Hierarchy  out  of 
office  and  put  a Republican  Ministry  in  its  place.  The 
doing  of  all  this  would  not,  as  Sacerdotalists  so  persistently 
contend,  interrupt  the  historical  continuity  of  that  Church ; 
for  in  the  case  of  Churches,  as  in  that  of  States,  continuity 
is  dependent  upon  the  people,  not  upon  their  ministerial 
officers.  It  is  as  impossible  to  establish  the  thesis  that  a 
Church’s  continuity  is  dependent  upon  its  Ministry,  as  to 
maintain  successfully  that  the  continuity  of  a great  family 
depends  upon  the  steward  of  its  household. 

Christian  churches  and  ministries  have  their  root  in 
the  will  of  the  people  to  organize  and  to  provide  for  the 
realization  of  Gospel  ideals.  The  chief  object  of  a Chris- 
tian church  is  to  enable  its  membership  to  make  provision : 
(1)  to  build  up  in  themselves  Christlike  characters;  (2) 
to  let  their  light  shine  in  Christian  lands  by  philanthropic 
works  and  (3)  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  all  the  world. 

For  the  accomplishment  of  these  great  purposes  we  have 


108 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


ancient  and  modern  Churches.  Some  among  the  former 
are  older  than  others,  but  all  Churches,  as  is  clearly  shown 
by  the  science  of  historical  criticism,  with  their  Ministries, 
whether  old  or  new  are  developments,  not  devolutions. 

The  Church  is  the  religious  department  of  the  great 
social  realm,  even  as  the  Family  is  the  domestic  and  the 
State  the  civil  departments  of  that  realm.  The  Church 
is  an  indispensable.  Divine  institution,  but  it  is  not  a whit 
more  so  than  the  Family  and  the  State.  If  there  be  any 
difference  between  these  three  great  social  institutions,  in 
respect  to  their  indispensability  and  Divineness,  it  is  in 
favor  of  the  Family  rather  than  of  the  Church  or  State. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  the  natural  order,  the 
Family  comes  first  and  the  Church  last. 

All  States  have  sprung  from  a Family,  or  from  a chain 
of  States  the  first  link  of  which  connected  it  with  a Family. 
All  Churches  have  sprung  from  a State  or  from  a Church 
the  first  link  of  which  connected  it  with  a State.  The 
Family  then  is  the  social  unit.  It  is  the  seed  of  both  the 
State  and  the  Church. 

If  an  individual  starts  a Church  or  State  he  generally 
does  so  upon  the  principle  of  unofficial  association.  This 
is  the  Family  principle,  the  seed  of  all  social  institutions. 
Hence  the  founder  of  a Church  or  State  is  held  in  vener- 
ation as  its  father  or  patriarch.  There  is  a sense  in  which 
the  individual  rather  than  the  family  may  be  regarded  as 
the  unit  of  society,  but  only  because  of  the  assumption 


REPUBLICANISM  THE  BASIS. 


109 


which  credits  him  with  the  power  of  associating  others 
with  himself. 

It  will  be  asked,  “What  of  the  family?  It  is,  accord- 
ing to  your  showing,  the  unit  of  all  society.  It  is  not  a 
fact  that  the  family  government  is  of  the  Imperialistic 
and  Sacerdotal  character?  ” We  answer.  No.  The 
family  exists  and  is  held  together  by  the  marriage  rela- 
tionship, which  is  dependent  upon  the  consent  of  both  the 
man  and  the  woman  concerned.  The  necessity  for  this 
mutual,  nuptial  consent  proves  the  Republicanism  of  the 
marriage  relationship  and  of  the  family. 

One  family  whether  large  or  small,  old  or  new  is  just 
as  really  a family  as  any  other.  It  may  be  a defective 
family  in  that  it  is  without  children,  or  because  the  children 
are  not  brought  up  as  they  should  be,  but  nevertheless 
where  there  is  husband  and  wife,  or  even  one  parent  and 
child,  there  is  a real  family. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  the  family  is  the  ultimate  unit  of 
the  whole  social  realm,  it  follows  that  if  all  families 
occupy  the  same  basis  in  respect  to  their  reality,  this  must 
likewise  be  true  of  all  states  and  churches;  and  conse- 
quently that  the  Sacerdotal  thesis  which  places  one  Church 
and  Ministry  above  another,  on  account  of  an  alleged 
inherent  superiority,  cannot  be  sustained. 

Republicanism  is,  then,  the  embodiment  of  the  principle 
upon  which  all  government  in  Family,  State  and  Church 
should  rightfully  be  based.  This  truth  is  now  so  generally 
received,  and  the  Republican  form  of  government  has 


110 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


become  so  widely  prevalent  that  there  is  no  chance  for 
the  coming  together  of  the  Churches  which  is  necessary  to 
the  evangelization  of  the  world  on  the  basis  of  Sacerdotal 
Catholicism.  The  only  basis  possible  is  Republican  Prot- 
estantism, or  Modernism. 


III. 

THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 

I. 

NO  MEMBER  of  one  of  the  national  Churches  of 
the  Anglican  Communion  can  go  deeply  into  the 
question  of  whether  Republican  Protestantism  or 
Sacerdotal  Catholicism  is  to  be  the  basis  of  Church  union, 
without  seeing  how  natural  it  would  be  for  those  Churches 
to  refuse  the  leadership  of  their  “ Catholic  ” membership. 
In  the  great  world- wide  movement  toward  Christian  unity, 
which  is  gathering  force  every  day,  the  representatives  of 
the  Anglican  “Catholic”  school  would  have  the  Churches 
of  this  Communion  line  up  with  the  Roman  and  Greek 
Churches,  rather  than  with  the  Protestant  Churches.  But 
why  should  the  leaders  of  the  Anglican  Protestant  hosts, 
who,  as  they  believe,  have  on  their  side  the  Gospel  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  the  doctrinal  standards  of  their  Churches,  the 
facts  of  their  ecclesiastical  history,  the  conclusions  of  mod- 


ttlE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


Ill 


ern  scholarship,  the  signs  of  the  times,  the  outlook  for 
Christian  unity  in  particular  and  for  civilization  in  general, 
allow  their  well-meaning  but  utterly  deluded  brethren  of 
the  same  Lord  and  in  the  same  household  of  faith,  beloved 
though  they  be,  to  succeed  in  an  undertaking  which  would 
inevitably  issue  in  everything  in  the  way  of  loss  and 
nothing  of  gain?  Much  as  we  love  and  respect  our 
“ Catholic  ” brethren  we  cannot  follow  them.  We  should 
not  allow  their  plans  to  be  carried  out.  The  thing  they 
have  in  hand  must  not  be  done.  The  Anglican  Churches 
are  reformed,  Protestant  Churches,  or  rather  they  are 
reforming,  protesting  Churches  quite  as  much  so  as,  for 
examples,  the  Lutheran  and  Presbyterian  Churches.  Our 
Churches  are  in  the  right  way,  the  Gospel  way  of  Repub- 
licanism. They  must  and  they  will  be  kept  in  that  way. 

The  most  notable  difference  between  the  Protestant 
Churches  of  England  and  Germany  was,  that  they  came 
out  of  the  Reformation  with,  respectively,  the  Episcopal 
and  Presbyterian  forms  of  the  Christian  ministry.  This 
difference,  on  account  of  which,  since  the  time  of  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  Anglican  “ Catholics  ” have  been  pluming 
themselves  so  ostentatiously,  is  correctly  accounted  for  by 
providential  circumstances,  which  at  the  time  were  uni- 
versally believed  to  concern  primarily  other  questions, 
rather  than  those  relating  to  the  regularity  and  validity  of 
the  acts  of  the  representatives  of  the  Episcopal  and  Pres- 
byterian Ministries.  One  thing  is  certain  that  the  English 
reformers  claimed  no  superiority  for  their  work  over  that 
of  the  German  and  other  national  reformers  because  they 


112 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


saved  the  Episcopal  institution,  and  their  Protestant 
brethren  of  other  countries  lost  it. 

With  their  theory  of  Episcopacy,  a theory  which  they 
held  in  common  with  nearly,  if  not  quite  all,  of  their 
contemporaries  not  only  in  the  Reformed  Churches  but 
also  m the  Roman  Church,  a theory  which  is  still  held  by 
many  theologians  in  the  Greek,  Roman  and  Anglican 
Churches,  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  English 
reformers  to  have  set  up  and  sustained  a claim  of  superi- 
ority over  the  German  and  other  reformers  on  the  ground 
of  this  difference;  for  it  was  believed  among  them  that 
there  were  only  two  separate  and  distinct  orders  in  the 
Christian  ministry,  the  Priesthood  and  the  Diaconate; 
and  that  the  Episcopate  was  merely  a higher  degree 
within  the  one  order  of  Priesthood. 

No  doubt  the  majority  among  Roman  theologians  then 
held,  as  they  now  hold,  that  to  a great  degree,  the  Papacy, 
and  in  a lesser  degree  the  Episcopate  as  a whole  was  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  from  the  Priesthood.  But  ever  since 
the  rise  of  the  Papal  institution,  Roman  theologians  gen- 
erally have  stood  alone,  because  regard  for  consistency  has 
compelled  them  virtually  to  contend  that  St.  Peter  was 
the  only  Apostle  and  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  the  only 
Priest;  that  the  other  Apostles  and  the  other  Bishops, 
Priests  and  Deacons  were  and  are  simply  representatives 
of  St.  Peter  and  the  Pope. 

The  High-Churchman  among  the  Reformers  may  have 
contended,  as  I do,  that  the  well  being  of  the  Church  was 
dependent  upon  Episcopacy.  In  later  times  this  was  the 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


113 


contention;  but  no  one,  in  any  reformed  Church,  before 
Laud,  maintained  that  Episcopacy  was  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  a Church. 

In  the  preceding  section  of  this  lecture  we  contended 
that  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry 
is  correctly  accounted  for  on  the  theory  of  evolution 
rather  than  upon  the  theory  of  devolution.  The  doctrinal 
history  of  the  Anglican  Episcopate  since  the  Reformation 
fully  justifies  this  contention.  A very  brief  statement  of 
three  interesting  facts  will,  I am  sure,  confirm  this  repre- 
sentation to  the  satisfaction  of  all  who  are  open  to 
conviction. 

1.  The  English  reformers  and  theologians  held  that 
Episcopacy  owed  its  existence  and  authority  to  human  en- 
actment and  that  it  was  instituted  because  it  was  found  to 
be  desirable  for  administrative  purposes.  This  was  the 
doctrine  held  by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  the  greatest  of  all 
English  reformers,  who  framed  the  service  by  which  An- 
glican Bishops  have  been  consecrated  from  his  day  to  this. 
Cranmer  was  burned  at  Oxford  March  21,  1556.  . 

2.  Next,  Archbishop  Bancroft  advanced  the  idea  that 
Episcopacy  in  the  Church,  like  royalty  in  the  State  had 
for  its  basis  the  Divine  instead  of  the  human  will.  Ban- 
croft died  November  2,  1610. 

The  greatest  theologian  that  the  Anglican  Communion, 
if  not  indeed  Christendom,  has  produced  since  the  Refor- 
mation, Hooker,  held  a doctrine  regarding  Episcopacy  that 
might  quite  accurately  be  designated  as  the  Cranmer-Ban- 


114 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


croft  doctrine  according  to  which  Episcopacy  is  made  to 
rest  upon  both  the  Divine  and  the  human  will. 

But  Hooker  held  that  the  will  of  God  was  manifested 
through  the  entire  Church,  not  exclusively  through  the 
ministerial  part  of  it,  and  that  therefore  the  Christian 
ministry  had  for  its  ultimate  basis  the  will  of  the  people. 
He  asserts  in  the  plainest  possible  terms  that  “ the  whole 
Church  visible  ” is  the  “ true  original  subject  of  all 
power.”  I quote  the  passage  in  which  this  statement 
occurs  both  because  it  is  very  much  to  the  point  here,  and 
also  because  I am  entitled  to  regard  it  as  a justification  by 
the  very  highest  Anglican  authority  of  the  Republican 
theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Christian  ministry  which  con- 
stitutes the  basis  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union.  I 
think  that  the  candid  reader  will  agree  with  me  that  the 
passage  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  Sacerdotal  doc- 
trine of  Apostolic  Succession;  and  that  I have  not  so  far 
said  anything  in  this  book  which  is  out  of  line  with  it. 
Hooker  says : 

“ There  may  be  sometimes  very  just  and  sufficient  rea- 
sons to  allow  ordination  made  without  a Bishop.  The 
whole  Church  visible,  being  the  true  original  subject  of 
all  power,  it  hath  not  ordinarily  allowed  any  other  than 
Bishops  alone  to  ordain;  how  be  it,  as  the  ordinary  cause 
is  ordinarily  in  all  things  to  be  observed,  so  it  may  be 
in  some  cases  not  unnecessary  that  we  decline  from  the 
ordinary  way.  Where  the  Church  must  needs  have  some 
ordained,  and  neither  hath,  nor  can  have  possibly,  a 
Bishop  to  ordain;  in  case  of  such  necessity,  the  ordinary 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


115 


institution  of  God  hath  given  oftentimes  and  may  give 
place.  And  therefore  we  are  not  simply  without  excep- 
tion to  urge  a lineal  descent  of  power  from  the  Apostles 
by  continued  succession  of  Bishops  in  every  effectual  or- 
dination.”— Ecclesiastical  Polity  VII,  14. 

The  irrefutable  argument  advanced  by  Hooker  to  es- 
tablish the  theory  that  Episcopacy  exists  by  Divine  sanc- 
tion was  of  an  historical  and  utilitarian  character.  It  was 
to  the  effect  that  the  institution  would  not  have  come  into 
existence  so  early  and  universally,  nor  would  it  have 
existed  so  long,  if  it  had  not  been  found  to  be,  from  a 
practical  point  of  view,  the  best  governmental  arrangement 
for  the  Church.  An  institution  which  had  developed  into 
being  so  early  and  generally  and  which  had  existed  so 
persistently,  because  it  was  found  to  be  so  indispensably 
useful,  cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained  upon  the  hypoth- 
esis that  it  is  a man  made  institution.  It  must  then  be 
assumed  that  its  basis  is  the  Divine  rather  than  the  human 
will.  Hooker  died  November  2,  1600. 

3.  Finally,  Archbishop  Laud,  taking  up  Archbishop 
Bancroft’s  theory,  which  was  not  irreconcilable  with  the 
principles  of  Republican  Protestantism,  added  to  it  the 
theory  of  devolution  by  Apostolic  Succession.  This  theory 
took  the  institution  of  Episcopacy  out  of  the  realm  of 
Republicanism  and  placed  it  in  that  of  Sacerdotalism. 
Laud  was  beheaded  January  10,  1645. 

In  justifying  the  basis  upon  which  I rest  the  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union,  I advance  a theory  of  the  Epis- 
copate which  may  be  characterized  as  the  Cranmer-Ban- 


116 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


croft-Hooker  theory.  With  Bancroft  and  Hooker  I hold 
the  Episcopate  to  be  a Divine  institution  and  with  Cranmer 
a human  institution.  To  Hooker’s  historical  and  utilitarian 
arguments  for  the  Divineness  of  this  institution,  I add  the 
philosophical  argument  that  the  principles  of  unity  and 
superintendence  under  one  headship,  which  have  their 
ecclesiastical  embodiment  in  Episcopacy,  are  basic  prin- 
ciples running  underneath  all  the  departments  of  the  whole 
social  realm,  which  departments  are  the  Domestic,  the 
Civil,  the  Ecclesiastical,  the  Educational,  the  Industrial 
and  the  Commercial.  Not  one  of  these  departments,  each 
of  which  is  indispensable  to  civilization,  could  exist  with- 
out some  embodiment  of  the  principles  of  Episcopacy. 

While,  however,  these  principles  are  essential  parts  of 
the  very  constitution  of  things  and,  therefore,  Divine  in 
the  very  highest  conceivable  sense  of  the  term,  yet  their 
embodiment  is  of  human  rather  than  of  Divine  ordering. 
In  the  ecclesiastical  realm  there  are  atpresent  several  widely 
differing  embodiments  of  the  Episcopal  principles,  the 
Greek,  the  Roman,  the  Anglican,  the  Parochial,  the 
Diocesan,  the  Provincial  and  the  International. 

All  these  different  Episcopal  institutions  may  be  held 
to  be  Divine  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  principles  they 
embody  and  human  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  embodi- 
ment. Though  these  institutions  embody  different  degrees 
of  the  Episcopal  principles,  they  are  nevertheless  equally 
both  Divine  and  human  in  their  respective  degrees.  The 
Pope  of  the  mighty  International  Roman  Church,  and  the 
Pastor  of  the  most  obscure  among  the  almost  wholly  iso- 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


117 


lated  Churches  of  the  intensely  Congregational  Baptist 
Communion,  stand  on  essentially  the  same  basis  as  to  their 
official  Episcopate  and  therefore  also  as  to  the  validity  of 
their  preaching  and  sacramental  administrations;  and,  if 
the  Roman  shepherd  be  unfaithful  to  his  trust  while  the 
Baptist  Pastor  is  faithful  to  his,  before  God,  the  first  will 
be  last. 

The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  provides  for  a new 
embodiment  of  the  Episcopal  principles,  which  will  bring 
the  Churches  of  Christendom  together  into  National,  Re- 
publican federations  and  International  communions.  This 
proposed  embodiment  of  the  principles  of  unity  and  super- 
intendence under  one  headship,  if  ever  it  is  consummated, 
will  constitute  neither  a more  human  nor  less  Divine  Epis- 
copate than  the  embodiments  of  them  which  we  have  in 
the  widely  differentiated  Episcopates  of  the  Greek,  Roman 
and  Anglican  Churches.  Nor  will  the  proposed  national. 
Inter-denominational  Episcopate  differ  more  widely  from 
the  Greek,  Roman  and  Anglican  Episcopates  than  they  do 
from  one  another. 

The  Sacerdotal  pretension,  to  which  our  “ Catholics  ” 
adhere  so  tenaciously,  that  Episcopacy  is  what  it  is  be- 
cause it  is  an  embodiment  of  the  mysterious,  intangible, 
indefinable,  miraculous  something  characterized  as  the 
grace  of  Apostolic  Succession,  and  that  on  account  of  this 
embodiment  the  Greek,  Roman  and  Anglican  Episcopates 
are  alike  or  at  least  closely  allied,  and  that  they  are  by 
reason  of  it  widely  differentiated  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopate,  is,  from  every  modern  point  of  view,  seen  to 


118 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


be  fictitious.  Among  the  many  strange  things  about  it 
all  is  that  our  “ Catholics  ” hug  the  delusion  as  to  the 
Anglican  Episcopate,  while,  so  far  as  that  Episcopate  is 
concerned,  Roman  Catholics,  reject  it  with  scorn  and 
Greeks  look  askance  at  it  although  they  both  hug  the  same 
delusion  which  is  based  upon  the  same  Sacerdotal  assump- 
tion. The  concern  of  Anglican  “ Catholics  ” to  secure 
the  admission  by  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches  that  the 
Episcopate  of  the  Churches  of  our  Communion  has  the 
grace  of  Apostolic  Succession  is  as  humiliating  as  it  is 
pathetic  and  irritating. 

But  the  fact  to  which,  in  this  connection,  I wish  to 
give  special  emphasis  is  that  the  English  reformers,  in  con- 
tinuing the  Episcopate,  and  in  formulating  the  Service 
for  the  consecration  of  the  new  line  of  Protestant  Bishops, 
who  took  the  place  of  the  old  line  of  Sacerdotal  Bishops, 
were  concerned,  on  grounds  of  expediency,  about  contin- 
uing an  administrative  office,  and  not  at  all  about  perpetu- 
ating, on  Sacerdotal  grounds,  an  Apostolic  Succession. 
Nor  did  it  occur  to  them  that  in  the  retention  of  the  Epis- 
copate they  were  securing  to  the  official  acts  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  English  Ministry  a regularity  and  validity 
which  was  wanting  in  such  acts  of  the  Presbyterian  Min- 
isters of  the  Continental  Churches. 

It  is  true  that  with  some  of  the  Bishops,  notably  Laud, 
the  Sacerdotal  ideas  came  back  to  a part  of  the  Anglican 
Episcopate,  and  that  ultimately  the  influence  of  those  of 
this  way  of  thinking  among  the  Clergy  and  Laity  led  to 
a discrimination  against  the  Clergy  who  had  not  received 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


119 


Episcopal  ordination.  But  this  discrimination  was  not 
intended  to  cast  any  reflection  upon  the  Presbyterian 
Ministries  of  the  sister  Churches  and  no  change  was  made 
in  the  ordination  service.  There  was  an  addition  to  the 
Preface  of  the  Ordinal,  but  this  was  a simple  provision 
for  securing  uniformity  in  ordinations  to  the  Ministry  of 
the  Reformed  Church  of  England  and  it  had  a political 
rather  than  a doctrinal  significance.  This  important  fact 
is  well  stated  by  Professor  Briggs,  in  his  illuminating 
work.  Church  Unit};.  He  says; 

“ It  is  evident  that  those  who  composed  the  Anglican 
Ordinal  did  not  think  that  the  consecration  of  a Bishop 
conferred  any  special  character  or  had  anything  of  the 
nature  of  a Sacrament  connected  with  it.  The  Preface  to 
the  Ordinal  does  not  claim  any  Divine  right  for  the  Epis- 
copate, but  appeals  solely  and  alone  to  historical  fact: 

“ ‘ It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  ancient  Authors,  that  from  the  Apostles’ 
time  there  have  been  these  Orders  in  Christ’s  Church: 
Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons.’ 

“ Furthermore,  it  does  not  venture  to  make  a rule  for 
other  Christian  churches  but  only  for  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, when  it  says: 

“ ‘And  therefore  to  the  intent  these  Orders  should  be 
continued,  and  reverently  used  and  esteemed  in  this  Church 
of  England;  it  is  requisite  that  no  man  (not  being  at  this 
present  Bishop,  Priest  or  Deacon)  shall  execute  any  of 
them,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined  and  admitted, 
according  to  the  form  hereafter  following.’ 


120 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


“ It  does  not  pronounce  upon  the  kind  of  ordination 
required  by  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent  with 
whom  the  Church  of  England  was  in  fellowship  during 
the  sixteenth  and  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  centuries.  It 
was  not  until  the  Revision  of  1661,  after  the  Civil  Wars 
had  embittered  controversy  as  to  Orders,  that  the  addition 
was  made : ‘ or  hath  had  formerly  Episcopal  consecration 
or  ordination  ’ with  the  Intent  of  ruling  out  those  who  had 
received  Presbyterian  ordination  in  Great  Britain.  But 
this  addition  did  not  make  any  essential  change  in  the 
Ordinal,  or  go  any  further  than  make  the  rule  more  specific 
with  reference  to  the  Church  of  England  and  that 
Church  alone,  except  so  far  as  daughter  Churches  have 
followed  in  its  footsteps. 

“It  seems  clear  from  Cranmer,  the  chief  composer  of 
the  Ordinal,  and  Barlow,  the  chief  consecrator  of  Parker, 
and  the  Influence  of  Bucer  and  other  Reformation  divines 
at  the  time,  that  there  was  not  any  other  thought  or  in- 
tention than  of  consecrating  an  officer  of  the  Church 
giving  him  authority  to  exercise  his  office  and  appropriate 
jurisdiction.  They  had  no  intention  of  imprinting  any 
special  Episcopal  character,  and  there  is  nothing  whatever 
in  the  formula  itself  to  suggest  any  other  intention  than 
that  of  Cranmer,  Barlow  and  their  associates  at  the  time. 

“ The  change  of  opinion  in  the  Church  of  England  on 
the  part  of  the  Anglican  Episcopate  and  Priesthood, 
however  extensive  it  may  have  been,  first  from  the  human 
right  of  the  Episcopate  to  the  Divine  right  first  expressed 
by  Bancroft,  and  then  to  a special  Apostolic  Succession 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


121 


for  Anglican  Bishops  with  special  Episcopal  character  im- 
printed in  consecration  which  seems  to  be  the  opinion  of 
the  Laudian  school,  cannot  change  the  original  intent  of 
the  Ordinal  upon  which  the  Anglican  Episcopate  is  based ; 
because  that  change  of  opinion  has  never  been  expressed 
in  any  revision  of  the  Ordinal,  and  if  it  had  been,  it  would 
be  too  late,  for  it  could  not  restore  a succession  which 
had  already  lapsed,  if  the  Anglo-Catholic  theory  of  the 
Episcopate  be  correct.” 


II. 

Perhaps  the  most  convincing  proof  of  the  correctness 
of  my  representations  against  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession  that  can  be  made  here  is  the  follow- 
ing  statement  of  facts : 

1 . For  a long  time  the  world  at  large  classed  the 
followers  of  the  Galilean  as  a Jewish  sect.  The  Chris- 
tians of  the  first  generation  were  Jews  or  proselytes  to 
Judaism,  and  they  regarded  themselves  as  a sect  in  the 
Jewish  Church,  very  much  as  John  Wesley  and  his  fol- 
lowers originally  held  themselves  to  be  a society  in  the 
Church  of  England.  So  long  as  this  conception  of  their 
relationship  to  Judaism  was  in  the  ascendency,  it  was  im- 
possible that  the  Churches  should  consider  that  their  un- 
official or  at  most  semi-official  colleges  of  Elders-Bishops 
constituted  a Priesthood. 

2.  It  is  essential  to  the  Sacerdotal,  “ Catholic  ” con- 
ception of  the  Priesthood  that  there  should  be  a Church 
the  Ministry  of  which  constitutes  a differentiated  class,  or 


122 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


caste.  But,  to  say  nothing  about  a ministerial  caste,  the 
Christians  of  the  New  Testament  times  were  not  even 
aware  of  the  organic  existence  of  a Church.  They  looked 
forward  to  the  founding  of  a Church,  but  they  identified 
it  with  the  Kingdom  of  their  Master;  and  it  was,  during 
the  first  two  generations  at  least,  the  universal  belief  that 
the  organization  and  establishment  of  this  Church  or  King- 
dom would  follow  His  Second  Coming. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  St.  James,  the  so-called 
first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  died  with  the  impression  that 
Christianity,  from  an  ecclesiastical  point  of  view,  was  not 
to  have  a separate  existence  from  Judaism;  and  it  is  equally 
indubitable  that  the  last  of  the  Apostles,  the  Beloved  Dis- 
ciple, passed  away  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  genera- 
tion of  Christians  with  a strong  expectation  that  the  Lord 
was  about  to  appear  in  glorious  majesty  to  found  His 
everlasting  Kingdom  of  universal  dominion. 

Sacerdotalists  try  to  set  aside  this  representation  respect- 
ing the  inorganic  character  of  the  New  Testament  Church, 
so  far  as  it  is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  followers 
of  Jesus  for  two  or  three  generations  had  little  or  no 
interest  in  any  organization,  because  they  lived  in  a fervid 
expectation  of  an  immediate  Second  Coming  and  the  pass- 
ing away  of  the  existing  order  of  things.  They  admit 
that  this  expectation  prevailed  until  Pentecost,  but  contend 
that  from  that  day  of  illumination  the  disciples  knew  by 
the  revelation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  the  Lord’s  coming 
was  in  the  distant  future,  and  that  He  intended  what  He 
had  to  say  about  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


123 


Heaven  to  be  understood  of  a Church,  the  foundation 
of  which  He  had  laid  and  the  superstructure  of  which 
they  were  to  build.  But,  to  say  nothing  about  the  general 
trend  of  the  New  Testament  literature,  all  of  which  was 
written  long  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  Book  of  the 
Revelation  which  is  one  of  the  latest  of  our  Sacred 
Scriptures  is  utterly  at  odds  with  this  contention  of  Sacer- 
dotalists. 

3.  Moreover,  with  the  New  Testament  Christians, 
the  Messianic  Kingdom  involved  the  idea  of  a restoration 
and  increase  of  the  glory  of  the  Jewish  Theocratic  King- 
dom. 

These  three  facts  in  themselves  afford  a short  cut  proof 
of  the  most  conclusive  character  that,  to  the  death  of  St. 
John,  about  A.  D.  1 00,  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  Apos- 
tolic Succession  by  an  uninterrupted  series  of  ordinations 
is  entirely  without  the  foundation  of  either  Scripture  or 
history. 

The  Jewish  expectation  of  an  universal  and  all-power- 
ful Messianic  Kingdom  and  the  Roman  hope  of  world- 
wide dominion  were  realized  in  the  Papal  Church,  which 
during  the  period  of  its  greatest  ascendency,  was  much 
more  of  a political  than  a religious  institution.  The  truth 
would  seem  to  be  that  the  omniverous  Church  of  Rome 
gradually  took  over  to  itself  the  Jewish  Theocracy,  the 
Heathen  Polytheism,  and  the  Roman  Empire.  After 
the  removal  of  the  Imperial  throne  from  Rome  to  Con- 
stantinople and  until  the  Reformation,  the  Pope  was  much 
more  really  a successor  at  once  of  the  Jewish  High  Priest, 


124 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


of  the  Heathen  Pontifex  Maximus,  and  of  the  Roman 
Augustus  than  ever  he  was  of  the  Apostle  St.  Peter. 

The  first  concrete  expression  of  the  ideal  of  Christianity 
as  a resistless  and  unlimited  civil  dominion  was  the  prim- 
itive monarchial  Episcopate  the  representatives  of  which 
were  in  reality  laymen.  This  institution  was  the  organic 
basis,  or  embryonic  germ,  of  the  whole  vast  evolution 
which  culminated  in  the  Roman  hierarchy  and  Church. 
It  is  one  of  the  most  striking  facts  of  the  Dark  and 
Middle  ages  that  when  the  monarchial  Episcopate  had 
reached  its  complete  development  in  the  Papacy  of  the 
Roman  Church,  the  occupant  of  the  reputed  chair  of  St. 
Peter  was  much  more  of  a King  than  a Bishop.  Innocent 
III.  who  flourished  as  Pope  from  1 198  to  1216,  as  King 
of  Kings  and  Bishop  of  Bishops  was  the  most  universal 
and  powerful  sovereign  that  the  world  has  ever  known. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion is  without  Scriptural  foundation.  It  follows,  then,  as 
by  a logical  necessity,  that  the  whole  Sacerdotal  superstruc- 
ture is  without  the  support  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  that,  therefore,  it  is  a non-christian  edifice,  built  upon 
the  sand  of  heathen  superstition.  Hence  it  must  inevitably 
be  concluded  that  it  is  as  undesirable,  as  it  would  be  im- 
possible that  Sacerdotal  Catholicism  should  furnish  either 
the  doctrinal  or  the  governmental  basis  for  the  necessary 
federation  of  the  Churches  of  Christendom. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


125 


III. 

All  the  Christian  churches  of  which  we  read  in  the 
New  Testament  were  congregational  Churches.  During 
the  first  two  or  three  generations  of  Christians  there  were 
as  many  Churches  as  there  were  congregations  of  the  Dis- 
ciples of  Christ  and  there  were  no  confederations  of 
Churches  of  a provincial,  diocesan  or  national  character. 

During  this  period  the  Christian  ministry  was  rudi- 
mentary as  to  its  official  character,  so  much  so  that  its 
representatives  were  hardly  officers  at  all,  but  rather  only 
leaders.  They  owed  this  semi-official  relationship  and 
leadership  in  the  congregations  of  which  they  were  mem- 
bers, to  their  prominence,  on  account  of  some  natural 
cause,  or  to  their  recognized  claim  to  spiritual  gifts  be- 
stowed at  their  Baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  spe- 
cially qualified  them  for  the  work  of  leadership  in  the 
Christian  community.  The  Christian  ministry  of  the  period 
during  which  this  condition  prevailed,  which  is  practically 
synchronous  with  the  New  Testament,  had  these  grades. 
Apostles,  Prophets,  Evangelists,  Pastors,  Teachers  and 
Bishops  or  Elders. 

Apostles  and  Prophets  did  not  confine  their  ministra- 
tions to  single  localities,  but  went  from  place  to  place 
establishing  new  Churches,  or  more  properly  speaking, 
associations  or  brotherhoods,  and  building  up  those  already 
established.  During  the  first  two  or  three  generations  the 
relationship  of  Christians  to  each  other  was  of  an  associa- 


126 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE, 


tive  rather  than  of  an  organic  character.  This  must  be 
borne  in  mind  by  all  who  would  reach  right  conclusions 
on  the  important  subjects  of  the  origin  and  authority  of 
the  Christian  ministry,  and  of  the  practicability  of  carry- 
ing out  any  such  plan  for  Christian  unity  as  is  proposed 
in  this  book. 

While  the  Church  was  an  association  rather  than  an 
organism  there  was  only  a rudimentary  embodiment  of  the 
Episcopal  principles.  The  little  there  was  of  this  embodi- 
ment was  chiefly  in  the  peripatetic  Apostles  and  Prophets 
and  in  the  resident  chairmen  of  the  local  colleges  of 
Elders.  Each  city,  in  which  the  Church  had  been  planted, 
had  one  of  these  colleges.  Before  the  development  of 
ministerial  officialism,  which  was  not  until  the  third  or 
fourth  generation  of  Christians,  the  Elders  were  Laymen, 
not  Clergymen  in  the  Roman,  Anglican  or  even  Denomi- 
national acceptation  of  the  term.  Their  position  corre- 
sponded almost  exactly  to  that  of  the  lay  eldership  of  the 
Presbyterian  Churches  of  our  day. 

In  speaking  of  the  Apostles  in  this  connection,  I have 
of  course  no  reference  to  successors  of  the  Twelve  or 
rather  the  Eleven;  for  the  ministerial  relationship  that 
those  original  disciples  sustained  to  the  infant  Church, 
was  not,  as  the  devolutionary  theory  postulates,  continued 
by  successors.  In  the  strictest  possible  sense  of  the  term 
the  Eleven  were  leaders,  not  officers,  and  so  in  the  very 
nature  of  things  they  could  have  no  official  successors 
by  an  unbroken  series  of  tactual  ordinations.  Leaders 
are  endowed  by  God,  not  ordained  by  man. 


.THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


127 


Leadership  is,  quite  contrary  to  popular  estimation,  far 
above  officialism.  It  is  at  least  theoretically  conceivable 
that  a man  might  be  at  one  and  the  same  time  the  Father 
of  a Family,  the  Governor  of  a State,  and  the  Bishop  of  a 
Diocese.  In  the  last  two  of  these  relationships  he  would 
be  an  officer;  in  the  first  a leader.  In  each  of  the  three 
relationships  he  would  be  the  head.  Who  does  not  see 
and  acknowledge  that  the  unofficial  headship  of  a Family 
is  more  exalted  than  the  official  headship  of  a State  or  a 
Church?  How  it  would  belittle  and  degrade  the  first  of 
these  threefold  relationships  of  this  man  to  place  it  on  the 
level  of  the  other  two,  the  level  of  officialism.  Leader- 
ship is  as  high  above  officialism  as  the  heavens  are  above 
the  earth. 

The  Priests  of  the  Old  Testament  were  officers  and 
the  Prophets  were  leaders;  but  the  High  Priest  never  lived 
who,  notwithstanding  the  dignity  and  glamour  of  his  offi- 
cial position,  impressed  his  generation  and  shaped  the  des- 
tiny of  the  nation  and  the  world  as  did  Isaiah.  The  field 
of  history  presents  many  similar  illustrations  of  the  com- 
parative superiority  and  importance  of  leadership  over 
officialism. 

Coming  home  to  our  own  country  and  time.  President 
Taft  is  occupying  the  loftiest  official  position  that  exists 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Mr.  Bryan  has  failed  again  and 
again  in  his  effort  to  reach  this  position  of  tremendous 
opportunities  for  the  doing  of  great  things  and  of  securing 
imperishable  renown.  Yet  even  Mr.  Bryan’s  political 
opponents  will  concede  that,  notwithstanding  he  is  without 


128 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE.  . 


the  prestige  of  office,  his  influence  as  one  of  the  greatest 
among  political  prophets  and  leaders  completely  over- 
shadows any  influence  that  he  could  exert  as  President  of 
the  United  States,  if  he  were  without  his  gifts  of  prophecy 
and  leadership. 

Prophets  are  leaders,  and,  though  their  influence  may 
be  increased  by  official  position,  the  leadership  of  civil  or 
religious  prophets  is  far  from  being  wholly  or  even  chiefly 
dependent  upon  officialism. 


IV. 

Any  one  who,  for  the  first  time,  enters  upon  the  in- 
vestigation of  Christian  Sacerdotalism  will  be  greatly  sur- 
prised that  its  chief  doctrines  are  paralleled  so  closely  by 
the  doctrines  of  Heathen  Sacerdotalism. 

Bishop  Lightfoot  asserts  that  Sacerdotalism  was  carried 
over  from  Judaism  and  Heathenism  to  Christianity,  and 
as  for  the  doctrine  with  which  we  are  here  concerned. 
Apostolic  Succession,  he  might  have  gone  on  to  say  that  it 
was  not  changed  much  after  its  arrival. 

The  following  observation  of  the  anthropologist.  Dr. 
Parnell,  in  his  late  book.  The  Evolution  of  Religion, 
should  cause  some  thinking  on  the  part  of  those  who  sup- 
pose that  the  idea  of  a devoluted  Church  and  Ministry,  as 
presented  in  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession  is  pecu- 
liar to  Christianity : 

“ In  considering  the  history  of  the  hierarchy  in  Chris- 
tendom,” says  this  author,  ‘‘  we  are  often  obliged  to  turn 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


129 


our  eyes  back  upon  the  pre-Christian  period.  For  instance, 
the  insistence  on  the  Apostolic  Succession  in  the  various 
churches,  a primary  article  of  faith  with  many  at  the 
present  time,  is  entirely  in  keeping  with  a very  old  Medi- 
terranean tradition:  for  we  find  it  not  infrequently  main- 
tained in  Hellenic  paganism  that  the  Priest  should  descend 
directly  from  the  god  whom  he  serves,  or  from  the  first 
apostle  who  instituted  the  particular  cult  or  mystery;  we 
hear  of  the  Priest  being  qualified  ‘ by  descent  and  by 
divine  appointment.’  But  in  earlier  religious  periods  the 
succession  or  descent  was  regarded  in  the  lineal  and 
physical  sense:  this  has  become  refined  into  the  idea  of  a 
spiritual  succession,  maintained  however  by  a continuity 
of  physical,  though  mystic,  contact.” — FarnelVs,  The 
Evolution  of  Religion. 

One  of  the  results  of  the  scientific  study  of  the  Old 
Testament  literature,  having  an  interesting,  if  not  indeed 
a fundamental  bearing  upon  the  whole  subject  of  Sacerdo- 
talism, is  the  fact  that  the  Jewish  Priesthood,  as  it  existed  in 
New  Testament  times,  was  a very  different  institution  from 
what  it  was  before  the  Babylonian  captivity,  so  much  so 
that  it  may  perhaps  be  rightly  said  to  owe  its  establishment 
to  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  rather  than  to  Moses  and  Aaron. 

The  Apostles  other  than  the  Eleven  and  St.  Paul, 
such  as  Barnabas  and  Apollos,  were  legion.  They  based 
their  title  to  recognition  as  the  Apostles  of  the  Messiah  or 
of  the  Christ,  not  upon  any  devolution  of  authority  derived 
from  Him  through  His  first  Apostles  by  ordination,  but 
to  a commission  received  direct  from  the  Holy  Ghost. 


130 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


The  Prophets,  Evangelists,  Teachers  and  Pastors  made 
the  same  claim  the  basis  of  their  right  to  be  heard  and  fol- 
lowed as  Christian  teachers  and  leaders.  In  the  course 
of  time  all  these  Ministries,  like  the  Ministry  of  the  original 
Apostolate,  died  out.  They  constituted  what  may  be 
designated  as  the  unpremeditated  provisional,  unofficial 
Christian  ministry  of  leadership. 

The  basis  of  the  permanent  Christian  ministry  was  the 
local  Eldership-Episcopate.  I make  one  hyphenated 
word  of  Eldership  and  Episcopate,  because  it  is  identically 
the  same  institution  under  two  exactly  synonymous  desig- 
nations. For  the  same  good  reason  I am  hyphenating 
Elders  and  Bishops  making  both  plural.  This  Ministry 
was  contemporaneous  with  the  Ministries  of  which  we 
have  been  speaking,  but  it  differed  from  them,  not  only 
because  it  was  a local  establishment,  but  also  because  it 
possessed  a semi-official  character  whereas  they  were 
migratory  and  unofficial  Ministries  of  leadership. 

Moreover  the  representatives  of  this  developing  Minis- 
try owed  their  relationship  to  their  respective  Churches, 
not  so  much  to  any  supposed  special  Baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  distinguished  them  from  the  rest  of  the 
membership,  as  to  their  venerable  character  and  standing 
in  the  community.  It  was,  like  the  Apostolate,  collegiate 
rather  than  individualistic.  In  the  larger  Churches  a 
college  of  Elders-Bishops  usually  numbered  thirteen.  At 
celebrations  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  twelve  were  reckoned 
as  representing  the  Apostles,  and  one,  the  chairman  of 
the  college,  as  representing  the  Master  Himself. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


131 


While  the  provisional  Ministry  was  in  the  ascendency 
a representative  of  it,  if  present,  took  precedence  of  the 
chairman  of  the  local  college  of  Elders-Bishops  in  leading 
the  people  in  their  worship  and  prophesying,  and  especially 
in  presiding  at  the  common,  daily,  evening  meal,  or  as  we 
now  say,  at  celebrations  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.  But  if  this 
itinerant  Ministry  was  not  represented  at  a gathering  of 
the  Church,  the  chairman  of  its  college  of  Elders-Bishops 
presided.  The  college  sat  at  a table  apart  from  the  rest 
of  the  Church  for  the  purpose  of  impersonating  the  Master 
and  His  twelve  disciples,  thus  dramatizing  the  memorable 
scene  on  that  momentous  occasion  when  the  memorial 
feast  was  instituted. 

As  the  Churches  grew,  and  as  time  went  on  the  college 
of  Elders-Bishops  naturally  assumed  more  and  more  of  a 
corporate,  official  character.  But  the  first  real  officers  of 
the  Church  were  the  chairmen  of  these  colleges,  who 
became  the  basis  of  the  monarchial  or  the  “ Historic  ” 
Episcopate.  The  monarchial  congregational  Episcopate 
was  coming  to  the  front,  at  least  in  some  Churches,  as  early 
as  Ignatius  A.  D.  11  7.  This  institution  was  well  and  all 
but  universally  established  in  the  time  of  Cyprian,  about 
A.  D.  250.  Cyprian  may  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of 
the  Imperial  hierarchy  and  of  the  Catholicism  which  went 
with  it. 

Even  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Apostolate  was  an 
office,  an  assumption  which  the  facts  bearing  upon  the 
subject  will  not  warrant,  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence 
that  the  Twelve,  or  any  of  them,  ever  executed  an 


132 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


ordination  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  to  that  office.  It 
will  be  claimed  that  the  probabilities  favor  the  conclusion 
that  they  did  so  set  apart  St.  Matthias  but  this  is  not  stated 
in  the  sacred  record  and  history  is  against  it. 

Historical  criticism  has  conclusively  shown  that  Igna- 
tius gave  expression  to  the  popular  belief,  when  he  repre- 
sented that  the  colleges  of  Elders-Bishops,  were  successors 
of  the  Apostles.  There  is  not,  however,  the  slightest  evi- 
dence that  the  representatives  of  these  colleges  generally 
received  ordination  of  any  kind  from  anybody. 

We  are  far  from  the  truth  when  we  think  of  the  college 
of  Elders-Bishops,  of  one  of  the  New  Testament 
Churches,  as  corresponding  with  the  corps  of  Clergy  in 
a large  Parish  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  The 
position  occupied  by  them  was  much  more  closely  analo- 
gous to  that  of  vestrymen  in  one  of  our  Churches.  None 
of  the  Elders-Bishops  had  ordinarily  anything  to  do  with 
the  conducting  of  the  Services,  except  their  chairman 
whose  position  would  correspond  very  nearly  with  that  of 
the  senior  warden  of  a vestry,  much  more  so  than  that  of 
the  rector  of  a parish. 

The  chairman  of  the  college  of  Elders-Bishops  was  a 
layman  on  exactly  the  same  footing  as  the  other  members 
of  the  college,  and  in  this  respect  the  college  was  on 
precisely  the  same  level  as  the  rest  of  the  Church.  The 
chairman  was  elected  by  his  fellow  Elders-Bishops  to  the 
headship  of  the  college.  This  chairmanship  did  indeed, 
carry  with  it  the  privileges  of  conducting  public  Services 
of  wor^ip  and  prophesying,  and  especially  of  presiding 


The  apostolic  succession. 


133 


at  the  common  memorial  meal,  when  there  was  no  itinerant 
Apostle,  Prophet,  or  Evangelist  present  to  assume  this 
leadership.  But  in  the  exercise  of  these  functions  he  acted 
more  in  the  capacity  of  a lay  reader  than  of  a rector  of 
a parish. 

In  the  New  Testament  Church  there  was  no  local 
ministerial  officer  corresponding  to  the  modern  rector  or 
pastor.  What  there  was  of  such  ministerial  rectorship, 
or  pastorship,  or  headship,  was  exercised  by  the  college 
of  Elders-Bishops  as  a whole.  But  their  influence  or 
authority  was  strictly,  at  least  in  the  beginning,  of  the  un- 
official, leadership  sort,  like  that  exercised  by  a vestry  or 
board  of  elders,  rather  than  of  the  official,  dictatorship 
kind,  such  as  some  of  our  younger  clergy  seek  to  exercise. 

The  idea  of  an  official  Christian  ministry  which  was 
in  any  essential.  Sacerdotal  respect  separate  and  distinct 
from  the  laity  had  not,  in  New  Testament  times,  entered 
the  mind  of  anybody.  That  idea  did  not  begin  to  come 
in  until  the  third  or  fourth  generation  of  Christians,  and 
then  it  was  carried  over  by  undigested  converts  from  Juda- 
ism and  Heathenism  with  their  priestly  conceptions  of  a 
religious  Ministry.  These  conceptions  were  not  only  for- 
eign to  Christianity,  but  also  originally  to  Judaism. 

V. 

The  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  is  essentially  doctrinal,  not 
institutional.  He  taught  doctrines.  He  did  not  found 
a Church. 

In  discussing  the  question  of  whether  or  not  Jesus 


134 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


founded  a Church,  a question  which  has  a fundamental 
relationship  to  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union,  we 
should  bear  in  mind  the  facts  that  the  word  “ Church,” 
like  that  of  ‘‘  State,”  is  exceedingly  indefinite  as  to  the 
character  of  the  institution  to  which  it  refers,  and  that 
from  the  beginning  there  has  been  a strong  tendency  to 
carry  the  ideas  of  the  fourth,  fifth,  sixth  and  even  much 
later  generations  back  into  the  third,  second  and  first  gener- 
ations. 

At  least  in  popular  and  general  usage  we,  with  one 
breath,  speak  of  inorganic  Quakerism  as  a Church,  and 
with  the  next  of  organic  Romanism  as  such.  There  is  no 
doubt  that,  according  to  the  root  meaning  of  the  word 
“ Church,”  both  of  these  ecclesiastical  institutions  are 
equally  entitled  to  use  it  as  a designation;  and  yet  the 
difference  between  them  is  greater  than  the  difference 
between  the  mighty  British  Empire  and  one  of  the  feeble 
little  Republics  of  Central  America.  Thus,  in  our  use  of 
the  word,  “ Church  ” we  may,  as  to  the  degree  of  organi- 
zation in  mind,  mean  almost  everything  or  nearly  nothing. 

The  experts  in  the  field  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities  are 
quite  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  the  Church,  down  to 
at  least  the  third  generation  of  Christians,  was  of  the 
Quaker  type,  that  is  to  say,  a Church  in  the  inorganic 
sense  of  the  term,  an  informal  association  or  brotherhood. 

The  passages  in  the  New  Testament  and  early  patristic 
literatures  which  give  the  impression  that  Christianity 
started  out  as  a formal  organization  with  an  official  Minis- 
try and  a sacramental  system  are  explained  on  the 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


135 


hypothesis  that  they  are  so  many  evidences  of  editings,  by 
which  later  developments  and  doctrines  were  carried  back 
into  primitive  conditions.  The  simplicity  of  Christianity, 
both  from  its  doctrinal  and  institutional  sides,  during  the 
first  two  or  three  generations  can  scarcely  be  realized  by 
those  who  read  these  literary  remains  through  the  spec- 
tacles of  the  prepossessions  which  are  furnished  to  its 
members  by  any  of  our  Churches  except  perhaps  the  most 
out-of-the-way  Quaker  associations. 

There  are  certain  striking  and  illuminating  parallelisms 
between  the  institutionalism  of  primitive  Christianity, 
about  which  people  generally  know  very  little,  and  modern 
Methodism  which  is  well  known  to  all.  I have  some 
hesitancy  in  drawing  these  parallelisms,  because  of  the 
difficulty  in  doing  so  without  giving  a shock  to  the  reader’s 
sense  of  propriety,  or  laying  myself  liable  to  just  censure 
for  irreverence. 

The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  His  disciple,  John  Wesley, 
were  adherents  of  the  established  Church  of  their  respec- 
tive nations.  Wesley  was  devotedly  so.  Jesus  and  His 
Apostles  continued  in  their  Church  and  Wesley  claimed 
to  the  last  that  he  remained  in  his. 

Both  Christianity  and  Methodism  started  out  as  very 
simple,  unpretending,  religious  associations.  Afterwards 
they  became  more  formal  societies,  then  sects,  and  finally 
Churches. 

Both  Jesus  and  Wesley  had  apostles.  Jesus  was  a 
Layman  and  without  exception  His  Apostles  were  laymen. 
Wesley  was  an  Anglican  Presbyter  but  the  great  majority 


136 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


of  his  apostles  were  laymen.  Jesus  and  Wesley  appointed 
their  apostles  without  any  reference  to  the  people;  but 
they  made  these  appointments  as  leaders  not  as  officers. 
Jesus  never  said  anything  or  did  anything  in  an  official 
capacity;  for  a long  time,  if  not  indeed  always,  this  was 
true  of  Wesley. 

Wesley  was  the  leader  and  founder  of  the  inorganic 
Methodist  association,  or  brotherhood  and  he  lived  to 
guide  its  comparatively  rapid  development  until  it  reached 
the  very  threshold  of  organic  ecclesiasticism.  Jesus  did 
not  live  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  direction  of  the 
tendencies  which  finally  separated  the  associations  or 
brotherhoods  of  His  followers  from  the  Jewish  and 
Heathen  Churches  into  the  Christian,  ecclesiastical  or- 
ganizations of  which  we  have  accounts  in  the  early  Chris- 
tian writings.  Of  course  He  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
increasingly  large  confederations  of  those  primitive  Congre- 
gational Churches  which  were  consecutively  formed  with 
the  development  of  the  mighty  Catholic  Church. 

In  the  nature  of  things  the  founders  of  associations  or 
Churches  cannot  have  the  successors  which  the  Sacerdotal 
doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession  postulates.  So  far  as  this 
observation  concerns  Wesley,  it  is  about  as  self-evidently 
true  as  any  fact  of  history  can  well  be.  Yet,  in  his  case, 
there  is  an  essential  feature  of  the  doctrine  that  is  true  of 
him  that  is  not  of  Jesus.  The  Bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Churches,  throughout  the  world,  have  been  ordained  to 
their  high  offices  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  Bishops, 
who,  in  turn,  received  such  ordination  back  in  an  uninter- 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION, 


137 


rupted  succession  to  Coke  and  Asbury  who  were  ap- 
pointed and  ordained  by  Wesley.  It  is  not  true  of  the 
representatives  of  any  branch  of  the  “ Historic  ” Episco- 
pate that  they  received  such  ordination  from  the  first  Apos- 
tles who  were  appointed  by  Jesus.  It  is  not  likely  that 
Jesus  laid  hands  on  the  Twelve  at  all,  and  it  is  certain 
that  He  did  not  lay  hands  on  St.  Paul. 

The  conception  of  God  the  Father  or  God  the  Son  as 
being  either  in  Person  or  by  His  representatives  the 
founder  and  ruler  of  an  organic  civil  or  religious  kingdom 
is  really  non-religious  in  character.  The  doctrine  of  the 
freedom  of  the  human  will  is  one  of  the  fundamentals  of 
religion,  and  it  excludes  the  idea  of  the  imperial,  official 
ruling  of  man  by  God,  The  world  is  indeed  governed  by 
God,  but  His  government  is  by  the  sway  of  leadership, 
Jesus  was  neither  King  nor  Priest  in  the  Imperial  and 
official  sense  of  the  terms. 

There  are  some  things  which  the  religious  conception 
of  God  denies  even  Him  the  power  to  do.  So  far  as  God 
the  Son  is  concerned,  among  such  moral  impossibilities  is 
the  power  to  assume  the  office  and  to  exercise  the  functions 
of  an  official  Priesthood.  Being  Divine,  Jesus  could  not, 
or  at  least  would  not,  fulfill  the  expectations  of  those  who 
would  have  Him  become  supreme  Priest,  any  more  than 
He  could  or  would  fulfill  an  analogous  expectation  re- 
specting the  over-Kingship  of  the  world. 

If  Jesus  could  not  be  King  and  Priest  in  the  Imperial 
sense  of  Kingship,  or  in  the  official  sense  of  Priesthood 
it  was  because  it  is  against  the  very  constitution  of  the 


138 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


moral  universe  that  He  should  be  such,  and  this  being  the 
case  He  could  not  delegate  to  the  Apostles  such  authority 
and  prerogatives  as  the  Sacerdotal  conception  of  the 
Christian  ministry  affirms  Him  to  have  given  them. 

Jesus  did  indeed,  say  to  His  most  trusted  Apostles,  “As 
My  Father  hath  sent  Me  even  so  send  I you.”  Sacer- 
dotalists  interpret  this  to  mean  that  the  Father  exercised 
authority  in  sending  the  Son,  and  that,  therefore,  the 
Apostles  ^vere  sent  by  the  Divine  authority  of  Jesus.  But 
God  exercised  love;  not  authority  in  sending  Jesus,  and 
He  was  sent  as  a Prophet,  not  Priest. 

When  the  Pharisees  asked  Jesus,  “ By  what  authority 
doest  Thou  these  things?  ” the  answer  was  to  the  effect, 
“ The  authority  of  a great  love  and  of  ability  to  do 
what  love  demands  for  the  world’s  saving.”  In  the  moral, 
religious  sense  there  is  no  arbitrary  Divine  authority. 

One  among  the  several  learned  and  independent 
thinkers  who  was  kind  enough  to  read  critically  the 
manuscript  of  this  book,  made  a comment  respecting  this 
conclusive  point  against  the  Sacerdotalists  of  such  perti- 
nency and  excellency  that  I am  taking  the  liberty  of 
quoting  it.  I wish  that  I felt  free  to  connect  it  with  the 
critic’s  name,  but  unfortunately,  I do  not.  However,  the 
comment  will  stand  on  its  own  merits  and  I hope  that 
it  will  be  read  more  than  once  by  many  a Sacerdotalist. 

“ The  mistake  of  the  Church  has  been  in  supposing 
that  it  had  authority  in  realms  in  which  its  ‘ writ  does  not 
run.’  It  has  no  authority  to  do  anything  but  proclaim 
the  Gospel  of  salvation;  no  authority  outside  the  realm 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


139 


of  spiritual  appeal.  Surely  no  other  authority  was  ever 
exercised  by  the  Christ  during  His  earthly  Ministry;  and 
He  could  hardly  have  meant  to  convey  to  His  Apostles 
what  He  Himself  furnished  no  evidence  of  possessing  in 
His  relation  to  men.  It  should  never  be  lost  sight  of 
for  one  moment  that  Jesus  was  sent  to  the  Cross  by  an 
authoritative  Church;  a Church  which  supposed  itself 
acting  for  God  and  in  the  service  of  true  religion,  the  only 
true  religion,  when  it  exercised  authority  to  define  the  limits 
within  which  truth  should  appeal  to  the  souls  of  men. 

“ Scribes  and  Pharisees  undoubtedly  had  authority  to 
submerge  and  silence  Jesus,  if  they  could,  by  teaching 
a better  Gospel  than  His ; by  rendering  to  humanity  more 
effective  service  than  His;  but  the  moment  they  declined 
to  match  their  truth  and  their  service  against  His,  they 
denied  themselves  all  authority  to  deal  with  Him  in  any 
way  whatever,  all  authority  save  the  authority  of  evil 
to  war  against  good,  of  hell  to  defy  Heaven. 

“ The  modern  Sacerdotal  Church  joins  hands  with 
the  Sanhedrin,  whenever  it  says  to  any  other  Church: 
‘ I have  authority  to  command  your  obedience,  which  is 
something  quite  apart  from  the  question  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  essential  Gospel  I proclaim  is  better  than  the 
essential  Gospel  you  proclaim,  or  the  redemptive  service 
I am  rendering  more  or  less  effective  than  the  service  you 
are  rendering.’  To  lay  claim  to  such  authority  is  to  lay 
claim  to  what  can  by  no  possibility  be  conceived  of  as 
within  the  limits  of  the  moral  or  spiritual  realm.  And 


140 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


what  business  has  any  Church  outside  this  realm?  Cer- 
tainly no  Christly  business.” 

It  is  true  that  John  and  Charles  Wesley,  and  some 
others  who  joined  them,  were  Priests  in  the  established 
Church,  and  it  is  also  true  that,  before  the  close  of  the 
New  Testament  period,  several  Priests  of  the  Jewish 
Church  identified  themselves  with  the  associations  that 
had  been  formed  by  the  followers  of  Jesus.  But  neither 
did  these  Anglican  Priests  nor  those  Jewish  Priests  exer- 
cise their  Ministry,  as  Jewish  or  Anglican  Priests,  in  rela- 
tionship to  the  new  society  with  which  they  respectively 
identified  themselves. 

The  Ministries  which  soon  developed  in  the  case  of 
both  the  Apostolic  and  Wesleyan  religious  associations 
were,  at  the  beginning,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term, 
lay  ministries,  the  representatives  of  which  performed  no 
priestly  function.  They  preached,  but  in  doing  this  they 
did  not  consider  that  they  were  usurping  priestly  pre- 
rogatives. 

We  read  of  at  least  one  instance  of  a layman  who 
in  apostolic  times  preached  the  Gospel  more  eloquently 
than  it  was  preached  by  even  the  great  St.  Paul.  This 
man  was  Apollos.  His  is  an  interesting  and  instructive 
case.  It  is  in  itself  quite  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  laity 
have  a right  and  are,  therefore,  expected  to  preach  the 
Gospel  according  to  their  ability  and  opportunity ; for  we 
have  in  this  narrative  two  laymen,  Apollos  and  Aquila, 
and  also  one  lay-woman,  Priscilla,  who  preached,  or 
what  is  the  same  thing,  taught  the  saving  truths  of  Christ’s 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


141 


Gospel.  Really  every  Sunday  School  teacher  in  the  land 
is  a preacher,  and  some  among  them  are  very  able 
preachers. 

When  certain  of  the  Apostles  found  a man  who  was  not 
of  their  number,  or  even  a professed  follower  of  Christ, 
casting  out  devils  and  healing  the  sick,  they  reported  it  to 
their  Master  with  disapproval.  Instead  of  sympathizing 
with  them  in  their  narrowness.  He  said,  “ Forbid  them 
not;  for  there  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a miracle  in  My 
Name  that  can  lightly  speak  evil  of  Me.”  “ For  he  that 
is  not  against  us  is  on  our  part.”  “For  whosoever  shall 
give  you  a cup  of  water  to  drink  in  My  Name,  because 
ye  belong  to  Christ,  verily,  I say  unto  you,  he  shall  not 
lose  his  reward.” 

'Nor  did  the  representatives  of  the  primitive  Christian 
ministry  of  leadership  and  service  think  that  they  were 
performing  priestly  acts  in  baptizing,  in  administering  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  or  in  sending  out  preachers  of  the  Gospel 
jDy  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination.  Originally,  all 
this  was  done  by  laymen. 

A proof  that  a Sacerdotal  Ministry  is  not  native  to 
Christianity  and  that  it  was  not  derived  from  the  Old 
Testament  is  the  fact  that  organic  Christianity  owes  its 
existence  to  the  Gentiles  rather  than  to  the  Jews.  Jesus 
had  nothing  whatsoever  to  do,  and  His  original  Apostles 
not  much  with  these  ecclesiastical  developments.  The  real 
organizers  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  into  Churches  were 
St.  Paul,  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  Ignatius,  Cyprian, 
Constantine  and  the  Popes. 


142 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


St.  Paul  occupies  much  the  same  relationship  to  organic 
Christianity  as  a whole  that  John  Wesley  does  to  the 
Methodist  Church  in  particular.  Jesus’  relationship  was 
and  is  to  all  His  individual  followers  and  even  to  all  those 
who  are  trying  to  be  obedient  to  the  heavenly  voice,  as 
heard  through  their  consciences  whether  or  not  they  be- 
long to  any  Church. 

How  far  St.  Paul,  the  organizing  genius  of  Christian- 
ity, was  from  adopting  the  Old  Testament  Sacerdotal 
system  may  be  judged  by  the  fact  that  he  openly  pro- 
claimed that  “ Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law.”  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  “ end  ” is  used  here  as  a synonym  of 
abrogation,  and  “ law  ” of  the  Sacerdotal  requirements. 

I am  among  those  who  hold  that  the  many  efforts  which 
are  happily  being  made  to  bring  together  the  Protestant 
Churches,  will  demonstrate  the  absolute  indispensability 
of  the  headship  of  the  Episcopate.  But  the  importance 
of  this  institution  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  has  been  prov- 
identially developed  from  the  people,  for  the  meeting  of  ^ 
exigencies  requiring  a ministry  of  natural  service,  not  con- 
stituted by  Christ  as  a means  for  the  perpetuation  of  a 
supernatural  officialism.  It  will  be  clearly  perceived  by 
all  who  approach  the  subject  from  a scientific  point  of 
view,  that  an  institution  which  can  serve  a imifying  pur- 
pose could  not  be  based  upon  the  caste  hypothesis  of  the 
Christian  ministry;  but  that  it  must  be  a development 
according  to  the  Republican  theory  of  that  Ministry. 
We  want  unity  for  missionary  purposes;  but  the  cooling 
down  of  the  marvelous  missionary  enthusiasm  of  the 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


143 


early  Church  was  contemporaneous  with  the  ascendency 
of  the  imperial  or  caste  idea  of  the  Christian  ministry. 
Let  that  idea  secure  the  ascendency  in  the  Episcopal 
Church,  and  as  certainly  as  the  sun  rises  and  sets  she 
will  be  switched  to  one  side  as  a useless  little  antiquated 
sect.  ’The  Republican  spirit  is,  in  essence,  the  spirit  of 
the  Christ,  and  it  will  more  and  more  take  possession  of 
men’s  hearts  and  minds  until  it  covers  the  whole  earth 
as  the  waters  cover  the  sea.  “One  is  your  Master  and 
all  ye  are  brethren;  He  that  is  greatest  among  you  shall 
be  your  servant.’’  This  is  the  glorious  Gospel  that  will 
finally  triumph.  The  world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil  will 
not  forever  be  able  to  withstand  the  pure,  unadulterated 
Republicanism  of  the  Gospel. 


VI. 

The  custom  of  ordaining  to  the  Christian  ministry  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  as  an  institution  of  general  ob- 
servance and  recognized  importance  arose  with  the  monar- 
chial  Episcopate.  The  representatives  of  this  institution, 
who  constituted  the  first  official  Christian  ministry,  owed 
originally,  their  position  to  election  by  their  fellow  Elders- 
Bishops  to  the  chairmanship  of  the  unofficial  college. 
At  first,  and  for  a considerable  period,  when  the  election 
was  followed  by  ordination,  which  was  not  generally  the 
case,  those  who  did  the  electing  also  did  the  ordaining  to 
the  Episcopal  office. 


144 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


This  office  started  out  as  strictly  a congregational  in- 
stitution, so  much  so  that  a representative  of  it  had  not 
only  no  official  position  outside  of  the  congregation  of 
which  he  was  the  head,  but  he  had  no  relationship  to 
the  Episcopal  heads  of  other  congregations.  There  was 
unity  between  the  New  Testament  Churches,  but  it  was 
spiritual,  not  organic.  It  was  the  inorganic  unity,  so  much 
lost  sight  of  in  our  day,  of  “ the  Communion  of  Saints.” 
The  representatives  of  the  various  unofficial,  peripatetic 
Ministries,  in  their  pilgrimages  among  the  brotherhoods, 
did  much  to  promote  this  spiritual  unity.  The  imperative 
necessity  for  co-operative  works  of  brotherly  love  and 
mercy,  and  also  the  dire  necessity  for  standing  by  each 
other  in  times  of  persecution,  had  much  to  do  with  bring- 
ing about  the  organic  unity  which  by  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century  had  everywhere  become  such  a marked 
characteristic  of  the  rapidly  multiplying  followers  of  the 
crucified  Nazarene. 

After  a time  the  congregational  Episcopal  heads 
formed  associations  or  colleges  of  their  own,  which, 
though  at  first  purely  unofficial  in  character,  soon  came 
to  bear  a semi-official  relationship  to  the  congregations 
which  were  represented  in  them  by  their  heads.  Cyprian,  a 
man  of  high  character,  and  great  ability,  who  flourished, 
as  the  Episcopal  head  of  the  African  Church  at  Carthage, 
from  A.  D.  248  to  258,  was  the  genius  of  organization 
who,  so  far  as  the  province  of  the  Roman  government 
to  which  Carthage  belonged  was  concerned,  carried  out 
the  idea  of  consolidating  the  representatives  of  the  Epis- 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


145 


copate  into  colleges,  which,  respectively,  would  bear  a 
relationship  to  the  Churches  of  the  several  provinces  such 
as  the  colleges  of  Elders-Bishops  bore  to  their  congrega- 
tions. This  institution  gradually  became  universal. 

The  Episcopal  heads  of  congregations  in  their  colle- 
giate conferences  passed  resolutions  which  naturally  had 
great  weight  with  the  people.  Among  such  resolutions 
was  one  which  reserved  to  representatives  of  that  body 
the  right  of  ordaining  to  the  Episcopate. 

With  the  development  of  officialism  in  the  Christian 
ministry  there  came  a time  when  the  representatives  of 
the  Presbyterial  and  Diaconal  grades  of  it  were  also  or- 
dained. The  right  of  Elders  or  Presbyters  to  ordain  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  which  was  exercised  by  them 
before  the  rise  of  provincial  councils,  has  never  been 
quite  given  up,  at  least  not  in  theory,  by  any  of  the 
Churches.  Nor  was  the  ordination  of  Bishops  by  Pres- 
byters wholly  discontinued  until  long  after  Cyprian’s  time. 
The  Church  at  Alexandria  was  notoriously  slow,  and  the 
Church  of  Rome  was  not  far  ahead  of  her,  in  abandoning 
the  custom  of  ordaining  their  Bishops  at  the  hands  of  the 
local  college  of  Presbyters. 

The  intercessory  prayer  upon  which  the  benefit,  or 
grace  of  sacramental  ordinances  is  chiefly  dependent,  is 
the  prayer  of  the  Church  as  a whole,  not  of  the  officiating 
Minister  alone.  In  the  case  of  the  prayers  connected  with 
the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  whether  it  be  the 
baptism  of  an  infant  or  the  ordination  of  a Bishop,  the 


146 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


Minister  is  simply  the  servant  of  the  people,  appointed 
by  them  in  order  that  they  might  have  a leader. 

Baptisms,  Confirmations,  Holy  Communions,  Marriages 
and  Ordinations,  are  then  in  reality  administered  by  the 
people.  It  is  true  of  every  prayer  and  act  of  the  whole 
system  of  worship  that  it  is  the  people’s  prayer  and  act. 
In  so  far  as  the  Minister  prays  and  acts  on  his  own  re- 
sponsibility, he  does  so  as  one  of  the  people.  Except  only 
in  matters  of  administrative  function,  the  Ministers  through 
whom  the  People  administer  their  sacramental  ordinances, 
or  perform  any  other  acts  of  worship,  are  on  exactly  the 
same  level  with  themselves. 

The  sacramental  rite  of  Ordination  to  the  Christian 
ministry  has,  like  the  sacramental  rite  of  Baptism,  the 
effect  of  changing  the  relationship  of  the  recipient.  The 
Sacrament  of  Baptism  changes  the  receiver  of  it  from  a 
place  outside  to  one  inside  the  Church.  This  change  is 
baptismal  regeneration.  The  Sacrament  of  Ordination 
changes  the  receiver  of  it  from  the  common  unofficial 
Ministry  to  the  official  ministerial  office. 

The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  becoming  Incarnate,  divini- 
tized  human  nature,  of  which  every  representative  of  man- 
kind is  an  equal  partaker  with  any  and  all  others,  making 
such  a differentiation  between  men  as  that  which  is  sup- 
posed by  Sacerdotalists  in  the  Church  and  Imperialists  in 
the  State  to  be  created  by  a consecration  or  a coronation, 
or  an  inauguration,  to  be  beyond  the  range  of  possibilities. 

It  has  been  objected  that  if  a supernatural  effect  be 
denied  to  the  sacramental  rite  of  Ordination,  there  Is  no 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


147 


reason  why  it  should  not  be  denied  to  all  other  Christian 
rites,  not  excepting  even  the  two  great  Sacraments,  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord’s  Supper. 

My  answer  to  this  objection,  so  far  as  it  makes  against 
the  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  the  Christian  priest- 
hood, is  that  I do  not  deny  supernatural  effects  to  any 
sacramental  ordinance.  On  the  contrary,  I admit  that 
all  such  ordinances  are  supernaturally  efficacious.  But  to 
say  that  the  efficacy  or  benefit  annexed  to  a Sacrament  is 
supernatural  is  by  no  means  necessarily  to  postulate 
that  the  Sacrament  itself  is  supernatural,  or  that  the  ad- 
ministrator of  it  requires  a supernatural  endowment,  ex- 
cept in  the  general  sense  in  which  the  supernatural  must 
be  associated  with  all  things,  and  acts.  There  is  so  much 
of  supernaturalness  connected  with  this  life,  and  with  all 
that  contributes  to  make  it  what  it  is,  that  the  difficulty 
is  not  to  find  where  the  supernatural  is,  but  where  it  is  not. 
Mrs.  Browning  gives  expression  to  a profound  truth  where 
she  says : “ Earth  is  crammed  with  Heaven,  and  every 
common  bush  afire  with  God.”  The  subject  of  the  super- 
natural in  the  Sacraments  will  be  considered  more  fully  in 
Lecture  III. 

The  laying  on  of  hands  which  was  a part  of  the  cere- 
monial connected  with  the  sending  out  of  St.  Paul  and 
St.  Barnabas  as  missionaries  from  the  Church  at  Antioch 
had  nothing  to  do  with  ordination  to  an  official  Ministry 
of  any  grade.  This  observation  is  equally  true  of  that 
laying  on  of  hands  by  which,  according  to  Sacerdotal 
tradition,  the  colleges  of  Elders-Bishops  were  established 


148 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


in  the  several  Churches,  and  Sts.  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  set  apart  to  the  Episcopate. 

That  these  instances  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  were 
in  no  way  connected  with  the  institution  of  ordination  to 
the  several  grades  of  the  official  Christian  ministry,  as 
ultimately  established  in  all  branches  of  the  historic 
Church,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  ordinations  of 
which  we  have  accounts  did  not  give  the  ministerial  char- 
acter which  the  ordinations  after  the  time  of  Cyprian  were 
generally  supposed  to  give. 

This  is  perfectly  evident  in  the  case  of  St.  Paul;  for 
no  Sacerdotalist  contends  that,  so  far  as  ministerial  char- 
acter is  concerned,  ordination  put  anything  into  or  upon 
him  which  he  did  not  already  possess.  And  if  this  be 
admitted  of  St.  Paul’s  ordination,  the  same  admission  must 
be  made  of  St.  Barnabas.  For,  though  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  he  had  been,  like  St.  Paul,  directly  appointed 
to  the  Apostleship  by  the  Lord  Himself,  yet  there  is  no 
ground  upon  which  it  can  be  claimed  that  ordination  by 
the  Church  of  Antioch  did  more  for  him  than  was  done 
for  St.  Paul. 

No  Sacerdotalist  pretends  that  St.  Paul  received 
ordination  at  the  hands  of  the  Eleven  or  any  of  them. 
Even  Bishop  Gore,  with  all  his  erudition  and  ingenuity, 
has  utterly  failed  to  produce  so  much  as  a scrap  of  evidence 
in  support  of  the  contention  that  St.  Barnabas  was  or- 
dained by  them.  This  being  the  case,  it  is  not  at  all 
likely  that  any  one  will  succeed  in  setting  aside  Dr.  Hort’s 
most  conclusive  showing  to  the  effect  that  St.  Barnabas 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


149 


was  a layman,  and  that  the  Antiochian  Elders  who  or- 
dained him  and  St.  Paul  were  laymen.  He  also  shows 
with  a crushing  conclusiveness,  that  Ananias  of  Damascus 
who  baptized  St.  Paul  was  a layman. 

This  conclusion  holds  also  in  the  cases  of  any  ordi- 
nations for  which  St.  Paul  may  have  been  responsible,  or 
in  which  he  may  have  taken  part.  For  surely  it  will  not 
be  pretended  that  in  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  which  he 
set  apart  candidates  to  the  Ministry,  he  did  more  for  them 
than  was  done  for  him  at  the  Antiochian  ordination.  The 
Elders  of  St.  Paul’s  Churches  and  his  co-laborers,  Tim- 
othy and  Titus,  like  the  Eleven,  Barnabas  and  himself, 
were  Laymen. 

No  one  who,  with  an  open  mind,  has  attentively  read 
Professor  Hort’s  “ The  Christian  Ecclesia,”  after  reading 
Bishop  Gore’s  “ The  Church  and  the  Ministry,”  will  fail 
to  perceive  the  hopeless  futility  of  the  Bishop’s  strenuous 
effort  to  make  it  appear  that  the  representatives  of  the 
colleges  of  Elders,  of  whom  we  read  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, had  received  ordination  to  the  Apostolate,  or 
Episcopate  by  the  Eleven  or  by  St.  Paul.  Scientific 
historical  criticism  has  completely  exploded  the  traditions 
upon  which  he  rests  this  Sacerdotal  contention,  and  proves, 
beyond  the  possibility  of  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  New 
Testament  Elders  were  laymen,  even  as  the  representatives 
of  all  other  branches  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Divine  Lay- 
man, Apostles,  Prophets,  Evangelists,  Teachers,  Pastors 
and  Deacons,  were  laymen.  They  were  laymen,  quite 
as  really  so  as  the  representatives  of  a vestry  in  the  Protes- 


150 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


tant  Episcopal  Church,  or  as  a board  of  elders  in  a 
Presbyterian  Church,  or  as  a board  of  trustees  in  the 
Methodist  and  other  Protestant  Churches  are  laymen. 

It  is  impossible  to  state  the  fact  that  Jesus  and  His 
Apostles  were  Laymen,  more  strongly  or  confidently  than 
the  revelations  of  the  scientific  experts  in  the  field  of  ec- 
clesiastical antiquities  fully  justify;  and  I for  one  feel 
it  to  be  my  bounden  duty,  by  line  upon  line,  and  precept 
upon  precept,  to  give  this  fact  all  the  emphasis  that  the 
words  at  my  command  will  admit  of;  for  I am  fully  con- 
vinced that  in  its  general  recognition,  which,  thank  God,  to 
all  appearance  is  an  inevitable  event  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury, lies,  humanly  speaking,  the  only  hope  for  that  unifi- 
cation of  Christendom  of  which  not  only  the  world,  but 
also  Christianity  itself,  stands  in  such  great  need. 

The  religion  of  the  Gospel  was  at  the  beginning  a Lay- 
men’s Movement;  and,  if  ever  the  world  is  to  be  evan- 
gelized we  must  return  to  first  principles.  The  most  hope- 
ful sign  on  the  thoughtful,  discerning  Christian’s  horizon 
at  this  time  is  the  Laymen’s  Missionary  Movement. 

Not  that  the  official  Christian  ministry  is  to  be  aban- 
doned; for  that  is  no  more  possible  or  desirable  in  the 
case  of  a Church  than  is  the  abandonment  of  official  minis- 
terialism  on  the  part  of  a State;  but  that  the  Sacerdotal 
conception  of  the  Ministry  as  a mediatorial  caste,  the 
representatives  of  which  are  lords  over  God’s  heritage, 
the  custodians  and  dispensers  of  the  Christ-life  and  grace, 
must  give  place  to  the  Republican  conception  of  it  as  a 
Ministry  of  brotherly  service  and  leadership  in  the  works 


THE  Al'OSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


151 


of  love,  on  a natural  basis  which  leaves  room  for  the 
recognition  of  the  leader  as  a master  workman,  but  still 
only  a worker,  on  essentially  the  same  level  as  the  fellow 
workers  whom  he  serves  and  leads. 

VII. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact,  one  that  is  wholly  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  Sacerdotal  theory  of  the  origin  and  au- 
thority of  the  Christian  ministry,  that  the  only  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  Succession  of  which  the  primitive  Church 
knew  anything,  did  not  involve  the  idea  of  an  unbroken 
series  of  ordinations,  upon  which  the  right  to  rule  the 
Church  and  the  power  to  validly  administer  the  Sacra- 
ments are  dependent. 

It  was  held  that  the  college  of  Apostles  bore  witness 
to  the  teaching  of  Christ,  and  that,  after  that  college  had 
died  out,  this  witness  was  borne  in  each  Church  by  a 
college  of  Presbyters.  This  Presbyterate  was  regarded 
by  the  Church  of  every  city  as  occupying  a position  which 
was  entirely  analogous  to  that  of  the  Apostolate  in  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem.  This  idea  was  a sub-apostolic 
growth. 

The  development  of  a monarchial  official  Episcopate 
out  of  the  college  of  unofficial  Elders  or  Bishops,  of  which 
college  the  first  representatives  of  the  Episcopate  were 
the  first  among  equals  as  chairmen,  carried  with  it  a 
strong  and,  indeed,  inevitable  tendency  to  transfer  in  the 
case  of  each  Church,  the  Apostolic  Succession  over  from 
the  unofficial  college  of  Presbyters  to  the  official  Indi- 
vidual Bishop. 


152 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


For  several  centuries  after  the  New  Testament  times, 
Christianity  was  in  great  jeopardy  on  account  of  a strong 
tendency  to  corrupt  its  doctrine.  During,  say,  the  first  two 
hundred  years  of  this  period  an  Apostolic  Succession  was 
insisted  upon  by  means  of  which  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ 
was  held  to  have  been  preseiwed  and  handed  down.  But 
afterwards,  when  a centralized  authority  was  felt  to  be  of 
paramount  necessity,  Apostolic  Succession  came  to  be  re- 
garded as  also  a channel  through  which  the  Congrega- 
tional Bishops  derived  an  official  authority  from  Christ 
through  His  Apostles  to  rule  the  Church  of  God. 

Down  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century  the  Bishops 
were  supposed  to  receive  all  their  authority  from  the  people 
by  election  and  appointment,  as  do  the  Presidents  of  our 
United  States.  No  one  had  any  more  thought  of  a tactual 
succession  from  the  Lord  and  His  first  Apostles  being 
necessary  to  constitute  Apostolic  Succession,  than  we  have 
of  such  a 'succession  from  George  Washington  being 
necessary  to  our  presidential  succession. 

Mr.  Taft  is  a successor  of  George  Washington,  not  be- 
cause he  and  his  predecessors  were  inaugurated  as  Presi- 
dents of  the  United  States  by  an  unbroken  series  of  cere- 
monies corresponding  to  ordination,  in  which  a surviving 
President  or  the  surviving  Presidents  took  part,  but  be- 
cause he  was  elected  by  the  people,  inaugurated  by  their 
representatives  and  because  he  holds  the  same  relationship 
to  the  people  that  George  Washington  did.  The  Presi- 
dent has  always  been  inaugurated  by  the  Chief  Justice  of 
the  United  States;  but  if,  by  the  will  of  the  people,  a 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


153 


justice  of  the  peace,  or  a policeman,  or  even  the  humblest 
private  citizen,  had  inaugurated  Mr.  Taft,  he  would 
be  none  the  less  the  successor  of  George  Washington  than 
he  now  is,  notwithstanding  his  inauguration  by  the  head 
of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Thus  we  see  that  succession  in  any  office,  whether  that 
of  a Bishop  of  a Congregation,  or  of  a Diocese  of  confed- 
erated Congregations,  or  that  of  the  Governor  of  a State, 
or  of  the  President  of  a confederation  of  States,  depends 
upon  the  people,  even  as  the  continuity  of  a social  insti- 
tution whether  Family,  State  or  Church  is  dependent  upon 
the  people. 

But  in  the  course  of  time  the  idea  that  the  succession 
was  derived  from  Christ  through  the  Apostles  from  one 
Bishop  to  another  by  ordination  took  root  and  prevailed. 
This  is  the  Sacerdotal  idea  of  the  origin  and  authority  of 
the  Christian  ministry.  This  doctrine,  like  all  other 
Sacerdotal  doctrines,  has  failed  to  endure  the  light  of 
historical  criticism  which  reveals  it  to  be  fictitious. 

As  Republicanism  is  the  most  consistent  expression  of 
the  Gospel  on  its  institutional  side,  and  as  Republicanism 
is  here  to  stay,  nothing  could  be  a greater  misfortune 
to  the  Anglican  Communion  than  the  triumph  of  the  large 
and  influential  party,  which  stands  for  the  Mediaeval 
theory  of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry. 


154 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


VIII. 

The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  has  among  its  under- 
lying postulates  the  affirmation  that  the  organic  unification 
of  Christendom,  of  which  the  world  stands  in  such  great 
need,  must  be  the  result  of  its  reorganization  by  an  evolu- 
tionary process.  If  the  theories  respecting  the  origin  of 
the  primitive  Church  as  a Catholic  organization  and  of 
the  Christian  ministry  as  an  official  institution  which  I am 
advocating  are  in  line  with  the  facts  of  history,  it  has  been 
made  to  appear  that,  should  the  Churches  want  to  get 
together  they  are  perfectly  free  to  set  on  foot  the  requisite 
reorganization  movement.  No  doubt,  such  a movement 
would  encounter  many  and  great  obstacles,  but,  contrary  to 
the  representations  of  Sacerdotalists  their  character  would 
not  be  such  as  to  render  them  insuperable.  The  barriers  to 
reunion  are,  as  to  their  character  and  magnitude,  neither 
essentially  different  nor  any  greater  than  those  which  pre- 
vented the  American  Colonies  from  getting  and  keeping 
together  in  order  that  in  the  United  States  we  might  have 
a great  nation. 

That  our  representations  to  this  effect  are  in  exact  align- 
ment with  the  revelations  of  the  science  of  historical  criti- 
cism will  be  evident  from  the  following  summary  and 
quotation  from  Professor  Hatch’s  great  work  on  The  Or- 
ganization of  the  Earl^  Christian  Church.  The  masterly 
character  of  this  work  may  be  judged  by  the  fact  that  it 
has  stood  as  a Gibraltar  of  Republican  Protestantism 
against  every  attack  of  Sacerdotalism,  Professor  Har- 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


155 


nack,  the  prince  among  the  authorities  in  Church  history, 
was  SO  impressed  with  this  original  and  brilliant  attack 
upon  the  Sacerdotal  position  that  he  thought  it  worth 
while,  so  to  speak,  to  make  it  the  peg  upon  which  to  hang 
some  of  the  most  important  results  of  his  own  great  labors 
in  the  field  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities.  Accordingly,  he 
was  at  the  pains  of  translating  and  annotating  the  work, 
in  order  that  the  Germans  might  have  the  benefit  of  its 
light  upon  the  origin  of  Christian  institutions. 

In  Lecture  V,  entitled,  “ Clergy  and  Laity,”  Professor 
Hatch  shows  from  references  to  the  ancient  authorities, 
that,  in  the  minute  accounts  of  the  admission  to  the  office 
of  Bishop  given  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  and  by 
Cyprian,  A.  D.  258,  and  Jerome,  420,  no  mention  what- 
ever is  made  of  the  imposition  of  hands  and  then  proceeds 
to  say: 

” It  follows  from  this  that  the  rite  was  not  universal ; it 
is  impossible  that  if  it  was  not  universal  it  can  have  been 
regarded  as  essential. 

” The  conception  of  office  was  that  of  order:  by  vir- 
tue of  their  appointment  the  officers  of  the  Christian 
communities  were  entitled  to  perform  functions  which  in 
themselves  were  the  functions  of  the  whole  Church  or  of 
individual  Christians.  Ecclesiastical  office  existed,  no 
doubt,  by  Divine  appointment,  but  by  Divine  appointment 
only  ‘ for  the  edifying  and  well-governing  ’ of  the  com- 
munity. Of  the  existence  of  the  idea  that  ecclesiastical 
office  in  itself,  and  not  as  a matter  of  ecclesiastical  regu- 
lation and  arrangement,  conferred  special  and  exceptional 


156 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


powers,  there  is  neither  proof  nor  reasonable  presumption.” 

Professor  Hatch  then  states  the  three  causes  which  led, 
” in  the  slow  course  of  years  ” to  the  conception  that  or- 
dination does  confer  “ special  and  exceptional  powers  ” 
and  that  the  Christian  ministry  is  a Priesthood: 

‘‘  1 . The  wide  extension  of  the  limits  of  Church  mem- 
bership. Professing  Christians  adopted  the  current  mo- 
rality. And  there  grew  up  a distinction  between  clerical 
morality  and  lay  morality  which  has  never  passed  away. 

“ 2.  The  second  cause  was  the  intensity  of  the  senti- 
ment of  order.  The  conception  of  civil  order  under  the 
Imperial  regime  was  very  different  from  the  conception  of 
it  in  modern  times,  and  in  Teutonic  societies.  The  tend- 
ency of  our  own  society  is  to  have  the  greatest  amount  of 
freedom  that  is  compatible  with  order;  the  tendency  of 
the  Empire  was  to  have  the  greatest  amount  of  order  that 
is  compatible  with  freedom.  Civil  order  was  conceived 
to  be  almost  as  divine  as  physical  order  is  conceived  to  be 
in  our  own  day.  In  the  State  the  head  of  the  State 
seemed,  as  such,  by  virtue  of  his  elevation,  to  have  some 
of  the  attributes  of  a divinity ; and  in  the  Church  the  same 
‘ Apostolical  Constitutions  ’ which  gave  as  the  reasons 
why  a layman  may  not  celebrate  the  Eucharist,  that  he  has 
not  the  necessary  dignity,  call  the  officer  who  has  that 
dignity  ‘ a god  upon  earth.’  When,  in  the  decay  of  the 
Empire,  the  ecclesiastical  organization  was  left  as  the  only 
stable  institution  it  was  almost  inevitable  that  those  who 
preserved  the  tradition  of  imperial  rule  should,  by  the 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


157 


mere  fact  of  their  status,  seem  to  stand  upon  a platform 
which  was  inaccessible  to  ordinary  men. 

“3.  The  third  cause  was  the  growth  of  an  analogy 
between  the  Christian  and  the  Mosaic  dispensations.  The 
existence  of  such  an  analogy  in  the  earliest  times  was  pre- 
cluded by  the  vividness  of  the  belief  in  the  nearness  of 
the  Second  Advent.  The  organization  of  the  Christian 
Churches  was  a provisional  arrangement  until  ‘ the  Lord 
should  come.’  There  was  a keen  controversy  whether 
Christianity  was  Inside  or  outside  Judaism;  but  there  is 
no  trace  of  a belief  that  the  ancient  organization  was  to 
be  replaced,  through  a long  vista  of  centuries  to  come, 
by  a corresponding  organization  of  the  Christian  societies. 
But  after  the  Temple  had  long  been  overthrown  and  its 
site  desecrated — after  the  immediate  return  of  the  Messiah 
to  a temporal  reign  in  Judea  had  passed  from  being  a liv- 
ing faith  to  be  a distant  hope — after  the  Christian  Churches 
had  ceased  to  circle  round  Jerusalem  and  had  begun  to 
take  the  form  of  a new  spiritual  empire  wide  as  the  Roman 
Empire  itself,  there  grew  up  a conception  that  the  new 
Ecclesia  Dei,  whose  limits  were  the  world,  was  the  exact 
counterpart,  though  on  a larger  scale,  of  the  old  Ecclesia 
Dei  whose  limits  had  been  Palestine. 

“ With  an  explanation  in  the  one  case — ^which  shows 
that  the  conception  is  new,  with  a hesitating  timidity  in  the 
other  case — which  shows  that  it  had  not  yet  established 
itself,  Tertullian  and  Origen,  speak  of  Christian  ministers 
as  Priests.  It  was  a century  and  a half  after  the  time  of 
Tertullian  and  Origen  before  the  analogy  came  to  be 


15S 


THE  ONLY  BASIS  POSSIBLE. 


generally  accepted,  or  before  the  corollaries  which  flowed 
from  it  found  general  expression  in  literature;  but,  when 
once  established,  it  became  permanent,  and  in  the  course 
of  those  weary  wastes  of  years  which  stretch  between  the 
ruins  of  the  Empire  and  the  foundation  of  the  modern 
kingdoms  of  the  West  and  North  it  became  not  only  per- 
manent but  universal. 

“ But  in  earlier  times  there  was  a grander  faith.  For 
the  Kingdom  of  God  was  a Kingdom  of  Priests.  Not 
only  the  ‘ four  and  twenty  elders  ’ before  the  throne,  but 
the  innumerable  souls  of  the  sanctified  upon  whom  ‘ the 
second  death  had  no  power,’  were  ‘ Kings  and  Priests 
unto  God.’  Only  in  that  high  sense  was  Priesthood  pred- 
icable of  Christian  men.  For  the  shadow  had  passed; 
the  Reality  had  come;  the  one  High-Priest  of  Christianity 
was  Christ.” 


The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 


LECTURE  II. 

STATEMENT  OE  THE  PLAN. 

T.  The  Various  Plans. 

11.  The  Level  Plan. 


III.  The  Chief  Objections. 


“ Throughout  the  mission  field  there  is  an 

EARNEST  AND  GROWING  DESIRE  FOR  CLOSER  FELLOW- 
SHIP, AND  FOR  THE  HEALING  OF  THE  BROKEN  UNITY 
OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST.  WE  DESIRE  TO  EXPRESS 
OUR  WHOLE-HEARTED  AGREEMENT  WITH  THOSE  WHO 
TOOK  PART  IN  THE  GREAT  CONFERENCE  AT  SHANGHAI, 
IN  HOLDING  THAT  THE  IDEAL  OBJECT  OF  MISSIONARY 
WORK  IS  TO  PLANT  IN  EVERY  NON-CHRISTIAN  NATION 
ONE  UNITED  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST.  WE  SHALL  NEVER 
GET  EVERYONE  TO  AGREE  REGARDING  ANY  ELABORATE 
STATEMENT  OF  DOCTRINE,  OR  ANY  ONE  FORM  OF 
CHURCH  POLITY.  IF  WE  WAIT  FOR  THIS  WE  MUST  WAIT 
FOREVER.  THE  UNITY  TOWARDS  WHICH  WE  MUST 
STRIVE  MUST  BE  ONE  WHICH  ALLOWS  THE  LARGEST 
POSSIBLE  ROOM  FOR  DIVERSITY.  ALL  THAT  WE  CAN  DO 
IS  TO  RECOGNIZE  THE  ESSENTIAL  UNITY  UNDERLYING 
THE  DIFFERENCES  OF  WESTERN  CHRISTENDOM,  AND  TO 
UNITE  IN  FREE  INTER-COMMUNION  THE  CHURCHES 
PLANTED  BY  THE  DIFFERENT  CHRISTIAN  BODIES,  RE- 
SERVING TO  EACH  SECTION  THE  RIGHT  TO  ADHERE  TO 
ITS  OWN  FORM  OF  DOCTRINE  AND  POLITY.  IN  THE 
MEANTIME  THERE  IS  MUCH  THAT  WE  CAN  DO  OF  A 
PRACTICAL  KIND  TO  PREPARE  A WAY  FOR  THE  LARGER 
UNITY  THAT  IS  TO  COME.  IT  IS  THE  BOUNDEN  DUTY  OF 
ALL  MISSIONARY  WORKERS  AND  ORGANIZATIONS  TO  OB- 
SERVE TO  THE  UTMOST  DEGREE  POSSIBLE  THE  PRINCI- 
PLES OF  COMITY  AND  CHRISTIAN  COURTESY.” — From 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  World's  Missionary 
Conference  on  Co-Operation  and  Promotion  of  Unity. 


STATEMENT  OE  THE  PLAN. 

I 

THE  VARIOUS  PLANS. 

I. 

My  vision  of  Christian  unity  may  be  compared  to  a 
great  Cathedral.  In  the  course  of  the  quarter  of  a 
century  during  which  I have  been  dreaming  of 
the  coming  together  of  the  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  into 
one  all-inclusive,  comprehensive.  Catholic  communion,  this 
Cathedral  has  been  radically  modified.  At  first  it  was  a 
Sacerdotal  institution;  now  it  is  a Republican  institution. 
So  far  as  it  concerned  this  country,  according  to  its  original 
design,  provision  was  made  for  all  the  People  in  one 
great  Nave  and  for  all  the  Clergy  in  one  Chancel.  There 
was  only  one  Pulpit  from  which  all  would  hear  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel,  one  Font  and  Altar  to  which  all  would 
come  for  the  Sacraments. 


162 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN, 


This,  in  general  outline,  was  the  plan  of  my  Unity 
Cathedral  while  I was  of  the  Sacerdotal  way  of  thinking. 
Some  years  ago  I abandoned  Sacerdotalism  for  Repub- 
licanism, and  my  Unity  Cathedral  as  it  now  stands,  is 
modeled  after  the  Heavenly  mansion,  in  which  there  are 
many  rooms;  and  after  the  noble  conception  of  the  great 
ecclesiastical  statesman,  Henry  Codman  Potter,  which 
is  being  materialized  in  the  unique,  cosmopolitan  Cathedral 
of  St.  John  the  Divine,  New  York  City. 

In  this  magnificent  structure  there  is  to  be  an  immense 
Nave,  in  which  all  Christians,  irrespective  of  nation,  race, 
language  or  denomination,  are  to  have  an  equal  right. 
This  Nave  represents  the  unity  of  “ the  Communion  of 
Saints.”  There  are  also  Chapels  to  be  built  round  about 
this  Cathedral  and  connected  with  it,  in  which  only  the 
representatives  of  the  nation,  or  of  the  race,  or  of  the 
family  of  the  race  for  which  they  are  respectively  erected, 
are  to  be  on  the  same  footing.  These  Chapels,  connected 
as  they  are  with  the  Cathedral,  represent  the  Christian 
unity  of  organic  federation,  which,  as  I now  believe,  is 
the  only  organic  unity  that  can  reasonably  be  hoped  for 
that  will  enable  Christians  to  accomplish  the  great  two- 
fold mission  of  preaching  the  Gospel  abroad  to  all  the 
world  and  of  letting  their  light  shine  at  home  in  philan- 
thropic works. 


THE  VARIOUS  PLANS. 


163 


II. 

This  lecture  outlines  a plan  for  the  unification  of  Chris- 
tendom which,  in  my  judgment,  indicates  the  only  way  by 
which  the  Churches  can  come  together  into  the  unity  of 
confederated  co-operation  that  is  necessary  to  the  evan- 
gelization of  the  world.  In  order  that  this  plan  may  be 
contrasted  with  other  plans  I will  here  give  a condensed 
statement  of  them  all. 

It  could  perhaps  be  shown  that  there  are  almost  as 
many  plans  for  securing  the  requisite  unity  among  Chris- 
tians as  there  are  Churches;  but  if  we  make  three  groups 
of  the  Churches  the  principles  involved  in  all  plans  will  be 
sufficiently  covered  for  our  present  purposes.  They  are 
then:  (1 ) the  Denominational  or  Inter-Church  Federation 
Conference  Plan;  (2)  the  Roman  Plan;  and  (3)  the 
Anglican  Plan. 

1.  The  Denominational,  or  Inter-Church  Federation 
Conference  Plan  for  union,  is  a co-operation  in  philan- 
thropic, missionary  and  reformatory  undertakings,  which 
would  not  necessarily  interfere  with  organic  sectarianism, 
but  would  probably  crystallize  and  perpetuate  it.  From 
the  organic  point  of  view,  this  plan  is  diversity  without 
unity.  It  is  an  abnormal  body  without  a normal  head. 

2.  TTie  plan  of  the  Roman  Church  for  unity  is  a sub- 
mission to  and  incorporation  by  the  Papacy,  which  in- 
volves the  total  surrender  of  their  existence  on  the  part 
of  all  other  national,  racial  and  sectarian  Churches.  From 


164 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


the  organic  point  of  view,  this  plan  is  unity  without  di- 
versity. It  is  an  abnormal  head,  without  a normal  body. 

According  to  my  conviction,  this  plan  for  Church 
union,  by  amalgamation  or  absorption,  is  so  utterly  out 
of  the  question  as  to  be  undeserving  of  serious  attention. 
It  is  not  only  based  upon  imperialistic  and  Sacerdotal  prin- 
ciples which  are  hopelessly  antiquated,  but  it  is  entirely 
aside  from  the  whole  drift  of  things  as  observable  in  every 
department  of  the  social  realm.  Yet  I am  sorry  to  say 
that  it  is  the  plan  of  Roman  “ Catholics  ” and  also  of  not 
a few  among  our  Anglican  “ Catholics.” 

3.  The  plan  of  the  Anglican  Communion  for  Chris- 
tian unity  is  the  so-called  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral. 

This  plan  has  been  the  center  of  more  interest  and 
discussion  than  any  other  plan  for  Church  union  that  has 
ever  been  proposed.  It  was  formulated  and  promulgated 
by  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  in  the  year  1886,  and  ac- 
cordingly has  been  before  the  public  for  very  nearly  a 
quarter  of  a century.  Its  introductory  resolution,  with  the 
four  articles  from  which  it  derives  the  name,  “Quadrilat- 
eral,” by  which  it  is  popularly  known,  in  the  slightly 
changed  form  in  which  it  was  adopted  by  the  Pan- Angli- 
can Conference  of  Bishops  in  1 888,  reads  as  follows : 

“ Resolved  that,  in  the  opinion  of  this  (Pan- Anglican) 
Conference,  the  following  articles  supply  a basis  on  which 
approach  may  be,  by  God’s  blessing,  made  towards  Home 
Reunion : 

“ 1 . The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 


THE  VARIOUS  PLANS. 


165 


merits,  as  ‘ containing  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,’ 
and  as  being  the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  faith. 

“ 2.  The  Apostles’  Creed,  as  the  Baptismal  symbol, 
and  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the 
Christian  faith. 

“3.  The  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  Him- 
self— Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord — ministered 
with  unfailing  use  of  Christ’s  words  of  institution,  and  of 
the  elements  ordained  by  Him. 

“ 4.  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the 
methods  of  its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the 
nations  and  peoples  called  of  God  into  the  unity  of  His 
Church.” 

This  is,  on  the  part  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
an  official,  and  on  the  part  of  the  other  Churches  of  our 
Communion,  a semi-official  promulgation  of  the  basis  upon 
which  the  Churches  of  this  communion  have  expressed  a 
willingness  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  other  Protes- 
tant Churches,  with  a view  of  promoting  spiritual  and 
organic  unity.  The  plan  of  union  and  even  the  char- 
acter and  the  degree  of  the  union  are  open  questions  to 
be  decided  by  the  negotiating  Churches. 

Really  the  Quadrilateral  is  a proposed  basis  rather  than 
a plan  for  Christian  unity.  The  unexplained  phrase, 
“ the  Historic  Episcopate  locally  adapted  ” prevents  it 
from  being  a plan. 

What  does  “ the  Historic  Episcopate  locally  adapted  ” 
mean?  A large  part  of  the  Christian  world  has  been  ask- 
ing this  question  for  nearly  a quarter  of  a century.  We 


166 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


have  never  had  the  courage  to  answer  it.  The  reason  of 
our  timidity  is  found  in  the  fact  that  any  answer,  which 
can  be  given,  would  commit  us  against  either  Romanism 
or  Protestantism,  so  we  have  stayed  on  the  fence.  All 
realize  that  we  must  get  down  sometime,  on  one  side  or 
the  other,  or  else  make  room  for  both.  Our  “ Catholics  ” 
have  been  strenuously  insisting  that  we  ought  to  go  over 
with  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches.  Our  “ Protes- 
tants ” have  been  as  earnestly  contending  that  we  should 
identify  ourselves  with  the  Protestant  Churches. 

The  question  of  the  interpretation  of  the  fourth  article 
of  the  Quadrilateral  is  being  pressed  upon  us  by  the 
“ Catholic  ” Memorialists  against  “ the  Open-Pulpit  ” 
Canon  xix.  They  have  placed  this  question  before  us 
and  kept  it  there  in  such  a way  as  to  compel  an  answer. 
Upon  the  whole,  I am  glad  of  it;  because,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  in  doing  this,  the  Memorialists  have  rendered  a great 
service  to  the  cause  of  Protestantism.  The  1910  Session 
of  the  General  Convention,  in  view  of  this  action,  must 
explain  the  phrases,  “ Historic  Episcopate,”  and  “ locally 
adapted.”  The  explanation  will  inevitably  identify  us 
with  Protestantism  rather  than  with  Romanism. 

The  proposition  which  I am  recommending  is  a Plan 
for  Church  union  on  the  Quadrilateral  basis,  because  it 
points  out  a way,  I think,  the  only  way,  the  level  way, 
by  which  the  local  adaptation  of  the  Episcopate  provided 
for  in  the  fourth  article  of  that  document  may  be  accom- 
plished. This  plan.  The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
will  be  outlined  and  commended  in  the  following  section. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


ler 

The  Lecture  will  then  be  concluded  with  a statement  of 
and  the  reply  to  the  most  noteworthy  among  the  objections 
that  have  been  urged  against  the  plan. 


II. 

THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 

I 

Realizing  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  Epis- 
copate to  the  requisite  unification  of  Christendom, 
the  wise  leaders  in  our  Anglo-American  Church, 
at  the  General  Convention  of  1886,  offered  to  locally 
adapt  the  Historic  Episcopate,  in,  I take  it,  any  way  that 
would  contribute  most  towards  bringing  about  the  pre- 
liminary confederation  and  ultimate  reorganization  of  the 
Churches,  of  which  the  cause  of  Christ  and  the  good  of 
the  world  stand  in  such  great  and  imperative  need. 

There  are,  so  far  as  I have  been  able  to  see,  three, 
and  only  three,  ways  in  which  the  Historic  Episcopate 
can  be  locally  adapted.  They  are  these : 

1 . We  might,  if  our  sister  and  daughter  Protestant 
Churches  would  have  it  so,  denominationalize  our  Historic 
Episcopate  by  reordaining  the  Bishops  of  the  Protestant 
Churches  which  already  have  the  Episcopal  institution, 
and  by  creating  an  Episcopate  for  the  Churches  which 
are  without  it. 


168 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


But,  for  one,  I have  reached  the  conclusion  that  those 
Churches  cannot  be  brought  to  the  point  of  consenting  to 
such  a one-sided  arrangement,  for  it  would  imply  an 
inherent  superiority  in  our  Ministry  which,  I think,  will 
never  be  acknowledged. 

In  support  of  this  belief,  I cite  an  occurrence  at  a 
recent  meeting  of  the  New  York  Church  Federation  Asso- 
ciation at  which  Bishop  Greer  presided.  This  distin- 
guished representative  of  our  Anglo-American  Episco- 
pate, who  ably  administers  one  of  the  most  important  Sees 
in  Christendom,  is  exceptionally  broadminded  and  tactful. 
Unless  for  twenty-five  years  I have  been  misinterpreting 
his  utterances,  many  of  which  have  been  generally  re- 
garded as  being  very  timely  and  weighty,  he  is  Protes- 
tant to  the  very  core.  If  circumstances  required  that  he 
should  make  a choice  between  Republican  Protestantism 
and  Sacerdotal  “ Catholicism  ” he  would  not,  in  my 
opinion,  have  a moment’s  hesitation  in  casting  his  lot  with 
the  former.  He  voted  for  the  “ Brady-Gailor,  Repub- 
lican Open  Pulpit  ” Canon,  and  if  in  God’s  good  Provi- 
dence he  is  living,  he  will  no  doubt  promote,  by  his  elo- 
quent advocacy  and  by  his  vote,  the  adoption  of  the 
Huntington,  Republican  Preamble  to  the  Constitution. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  one  of  Bishop  Greer’s  stand- 
ing and  well  known  proclivities  could  say  almost  anything 
he  pleased  to  a gathering  of  Protestant  Ministers  of  the 
Metropolis.  But  the  criticisms  of  his  speech,  upon  taking 
the  chair  on  this  occasion,  show  how  very  far  this  is  from 
being  the  case.  Whether  seriously  or  playfully,  I do  not 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


169 


know,  he  suggested  that  it  would  contribute  greatly  to- 
wards bringing  together  the  Protestant  Churches  of  New 
York  City,  if  the  Ministers  who  are  without  ordination  by 
a representative  of  the  “ Historic  ” Episcopate  would 
come  to  him  for  reordination. 

The  newspaper  reports  indicate  that  this  suggestion 
created  a general  and  in  many  cases  even  a hot  resentment 
in  the  Ministers  to  whom  it  was  made. 

Dr.  Parkhurst,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  Presby- 
terian Ministers  in  America,  took  the  suggestion  so  much 
to  heart  that  he  wrote  Bishop  Greer  a letter,  in  which  he 
gave  him  to  understand  that  there  was  just  as  much  reason 
why  the  Bishop  of  the  Madison  Square  Presbyterian 
Church  should  reordain  the  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  as  why  Dr. 
Greer  should  reordain  Dr.  Parkhurst. 

Dr.  Price,  a prominent  Methodist  Minister  of  New 
York  City,  devoted  a sermon  to  Christian  unity  in  which 
he  discussed  the  question,  “ Shall  Bishop  Greer  ordain 
our  Ministers?”  From  which  sermon  the  Tribune  quotes 
the  following  spicy  passages: 

“ The  truest  idea  will  yet  be  realized,  and  all  eccle- 
siastical bodies  will  be  organized  into  friendly  co-opera- 
tion, with  resultant  economy  of  power.  The  chief  obstacle 
to  this  is  the  arrogant  claim  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  based  on  the  so-called  Historic  Episcopate. 
This  claim  is  comparatively  recent,  and  history  is  squarely 
against  it.  The  Anglican  Bishop,  Burnet,  tells  us  that 
up  to  1662,  Ministers  from  the  non-Eplscopal  Churches 


170 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


abroad,  who  entered  the  Anglican  Ministry  were  not  re- 
ordained. 

“ The  Protestant  Episcopalians  are  narrower  than  their 
creed.  Their  attitude  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  twen- 
tieth century.  The  Apostolic  Succession  that  the  Christian 
world  cares  most  about  today  is  the  spirit  and  power  of 
the  Apostles — the  courage  and  faith  of  Paul,  and  the 
love  of  John. 

“ The  theory  of  an  Historic  Episcopate  as  a basis  of 
union  is  well  enough  as  an  ecclesiastical  curiosity  to  be 
preserved  in  a theological  museum.  A mummy  is  a good 
enough  thing  in  its  place,  but  this  mummy  must  not  be 
brought  to  the  banquet  table,  when  the  King’s  children 
have  assembled  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  reunion.” 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Oscar  Haywood,  the  well  known  Pastor 
of  the  Metropolitan  Baptist  Church  of  the  Covenant, 
spoke  to  much  the  same  effect.  According  to  the  report 
published  m the  New  York  World,  he  said: 

“ The  invitation  issued  to  evangelical  Ministers  by  a 
distinguished  Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  to  come 
forward  and  receive  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination, 
if  taken  seriously,  is  an  affront  to  all  self-respecting  Min- 
isters. It  implies  an  assumption  of  ecclesiastical  superiority 
which  has  repeatedly  blocked  the  recurring  efforts  to  con- 
solidate the  Denominations.” 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  utterances  are  repre- 
sentative of  the  feeling  which  prevails  almost  universally 
in  the  Churches  which  are  without  the  Historic  Episcopate. 
They  show  how  wholly  worthless  is  any  plan  for  the  uni- 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


171 


fication  of  Christendom  which  is  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Ministry  of  the  Churches  having  the  so-called 
“ Historic  ” Episcopate  has  something  to  give  by  ordi- 
nation to  the  Ministers  of  other  Churches,  which  justifies 
its  representatives  in  making  such  offers  as  Bishop  Greer 
is  reported  to  have  made. 

2.  We  might,  if  all  concerned  on  both  sides  would 
have  it  so,  denominationalize  our  Anglo-American  Epis- 
copate, and  at  the  same  tim.e  denominationalize  all  other 
Ministries,  by  an  all  round,  reordination  of  a reciprocal 
character,  by  which  we  would  avoid  the  insuperable  diffi- 
culty connected  with  a one-sided  reordination. 

But  even  this,  at  first  thought,  comparatively  unobjec- 
tionable plan  for  the  denominationalization  or  local  adap- 
tation of  our  Episcopate,  would  be  strenuously  objected 
to  by  many  on  both  sides.  The  representatives  of  the 
Sacerdotal  “ Catholic  ” School  in  the  Churches  of  the 
Anglican  Communion  could  not,  I fear,  be  brought  to 
make  the  requisite  acknowledgment  respecting  the  ex- 
change of  benefits ; for  their  contention  is,  that  our  Ministry 
alone  has  anything  to  give,  and,  this  being  the  case,  a re- 
ciprocal reordination  would,  to  our  Sacerdotal  brethren, 
have  the  character  of  a farce. 

As  for  the  Protestants  among  us,  and  as  for  all  those  in 
the  other  Protestant  Churches,  we  do  not  favor  either 
a one-sided  or  a reciprocal  reordination  as  a plan  for  secur- 
ing the  requisite  Common  Ministry,  because  of  its  Sacer- 
dotalism, or  Priestism.  We  wholly  reject  the  idea  that 
ordination  to  the  Ministry  bestows  grace  in  the  sense  of 


172 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


character,  so  as  to  make  the  Ministers  of  say,  the  Episco- 
pal Church,  essentially  different  from  the  Ministers  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  to  render  any  representative  of 
one  or  both  of  them  capable  of  conveying  this  character 
by  means  of  an  ordination. 

3.  From  the  position  to  which  I have  been  driven, 
as  the  result  of  my  long  and  earnest  study  of  how  the  req- 
uisite unifying,  Inter-Church  Episcopate  may  be  secured, 
it  appears  that  the  only  way  open  for  the  denomination- 
alizing,  or  locally  adapting  of  the  Episcopate,  and  the 
attainment  thereby  of  the  necessary  Common  Ministry,  is 
the  mutual,  level  way  of  pure  Republicanism. 

If  this  way  were  adopted,  each  non- Episcopal  Church, 
following  the  example  of  some  among  the  Methodist 
Churches,  would  create  its  own  Episcopate  without  refer- 
ence to  any  other  Church. 

This  way  would  necessarily  be  level  up  to  the  point 
where  the  Denominational  Episcopates  are  created,  but  it 
must  also  lead  to  a national,  ecclesiastical  council  in 
which  all  the  Bishops  will  meet,  as  representatives  of  their 
respective  Churches,  on  exactly  the  same  footing.  In  the 
case  of  our  country  this  council  might  be  legally  incor- 
porated and  known  as,  “ The  United  Church  of  the 
United  States,”  of  which  Church  the  various  Denomina- 
tional Bishops  would  be  the  charter  members,  even  as  the 
Apostles  were  the  charter  members  of  the  Church  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  in  fact  of  the  Church  of  the  world. 

The  proposed  incorporation  of  the  Denominational 
Bishops  into  a National  Church  would  not  at  the  begin- 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


173 


ning  reduce,  or  in  any  way  interfere  with,  denominational- 
ism.  It  would  constitute  a holding  body  to  which  all  prop- 
erty intended  for  Interdenominational  uses,  such  as  hos- 
pitals, orphanages  and  homes  might  be  deeded.  Moreover 
it  would  constitute  the  core  about  which  all  the  Churches 
would  federate  themselves,  when  in  the  Father’s  own 
good  time  He  answers  the  prayer  of  His  dear  Son  for 
that  visible  organic  unity  of  Christians,  by  which  the  world 
is  to  be  convinced  that  God  so  loved  it  as  to  provide  for 
its  salvation  by  the  sending  of  His  only  begotten  Son. 

As  the  result  of  a large  correspondence  and  much  con- 
versation with  representative  men,  I have  become  fully 
convinced  that  no  plan  for  Church  union  will  be  adopted 
that  does  not  rest  upon  the  bed  rock  of  pure  Republican- 
ism, or  Protestantism.  This  rock  alone  can  afford  a per- 
fectly sure  and  level  basis  for  the  creation  of  the  required 
Common  Ministry.  Hence  I am  advocating  a plan  which 
might  properly  be  called,  “ the  Square  Deal  Plan,”  for 
securing  this  Ministry.  This  exactly  level  and  square 
proposition  is  the  interpretation  of  the  fourth  article  of 
the  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral  which  1 am  calling 
my  plan  for  Church  union;  and  which  in  season  and 
out  of  season,  I am  trying  to  commend  to  all  who  will 
read  my  writings  or  listen  to  my  conversations  and  lectures. 

I want  to  make  it  perfectly  clear  that,  in  advocating 
the  Inter-Church  Episcopate  or  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union,  I attach  no  importance  whatsoever  to  the  so-called 
“ Historic  ” Episcopate  in  itself,  or  for  that  matter,  to 


174 


statement  of  the  plan. 


any  other  official  grade  in  the  Christian  ministry  of  any 
Church.  The  plan  does  indeed  hinge  upon  a Common, 
Inter-Church  Christian  ministry  of  the  Episcopal  type; 
but  it  does  not  involve  the  claim  that,  because  of  some  in- 
herent superiority,  the  Episcopate  must  necessarily  be 
“ Historic.” 

When,  therefore,  I speak  of  the  Episcopate  as  consti- 
tuting an  indispensable  instrumentality  for  bringing  the 
Churches  together,  I must,  to  prevent  the  misunderstand- 
ing of  the  Level  Plan,  be  understood  to  be  referring,  in  a 
general  way  to  the  embodiment  of  the  principles  of  Epis- 
copacy, unity  and  superintendence  under  one  headship, 
and  not  to  any  particular  form  of  that  embodiment. 

If  any  one  interprets  me  as  saying  that  the  unification 
of  Christendom  is  dependent  upon  the  general  acceptance 
of  the  Anglican  embodiment  of  these  principles,  he  will 
miss  my  whole  meaning.  I have  no  idea  that  any  existing 
Episcopate  will  ever  become  the  Inter-Church  Episcopate 
which  is  the  basis  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 
That  Catholic  Episcopate  remains  to  be  developed  and 
it  is  likely  to  be  as  widely  different  from  any  of  the 
Denominational  forms,  Greek,  Roman,  Anglican,  Meth- 
odist, and  the  rest,  as  these  are  from  each  other. 

One  of  my  fundamental  assumptions  is  that  Episcopacy 
in  all  forms  is  but  the  Providential  embodiment  of  the 
eternal,  basic  principles  of  unity  and  superintendence  under 
one  headship  upon  which  federation  and  co-operation  in 
every  department  of  the  social  realm  is  dependent.  My 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


175 


main  contention,  my  thesis,  is  that,  if  ever  the  Churches 
come  together  it  must  be  under  some  national,  inter- 
Church,  ministerial  headship  embodying  these  principles. 

If,  according  to  my  theory,  the  solution  of  the  stu- 
pendous problem  growing  out  of  our  unhappy  divisions  is 
not  found  in  a Providential  development  which  will  give 
to  the  Churches  a common,  modernized  Republican  form 
of  the  Episcopate,  that  problem  is  unsolvable.  But  our 
Saviour’s  prophecy,  and  the  hope  which  has  taken  posses- 
sion of  His  Disciples,  the  manifest  necessities  for  Christian 
unity,  and  the  whole  drift  towards  unification  in  every  other 
department  of  the  social  realm,  render  it  impossible  that 
things  are  to  continue  as  they  are  in  the  religious  depart- 
ment of  that  realm,  where  unity  is  supremely  important. 

11. 

It  is  an  essential  part  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  that  the  proposed  Inter-Church  Episcopate  upon 
which  it  is  dependent  shall  not  be  regarded  as  establishing 
any  immediate  organic  relationship  between  the  Churches 
which  adopt  the  plan.  A Denomination  after  the  crea- 
tion of  this  Episcopate  is,  according  to  this  plan,  to  be 
organically  as  independent  of  all  other  Churches  as  before. 

Spiritual  unity  having  been  restored  through  a Common 
Ministry,  organic  unity  is  to  be  left  to  Providential  de- 
velopment. In  the  proposed  Inter-Church  national  coun- 
cil the  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  are 
to  be  recognized  on  all  hands  as  occupying  exactly  the 


176 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


same  footing  as  the  Bishops  of  the  other  Churches. 
When,  as  the  result  of  the  adoption  of  this  plan,  organic 
union  does  take  place,  it  will  not  have  for  its  center  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  or  any  other  sister  Protestant  Church, 
but  the  legally  incorporated  national  council  of  Bishops 
of  all  the  Protestant  Churches.  At  first  this  council  will 
be  unofficial,  but  gradually  it  will  take  on  an  official 
character. 

The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  is  then  no  scheme 
for  sectarian  aggrandizement.  It  is  Catholic  in  the  truest 
and  broadest  sense  of  the  term.  If  it  is  carried  out,  the 
Church  of  the  United  States  will  be  a new  organization, 
as  different  from  any  of  the  existing  Churches  as  they  are 
different  one  from  another.  But  the  United  Church  of  the 
United  States  will  not  be  a new  Church;  for  it  will  con- 
tain all  the  members  of  the  old  Churches  which  enter  into 
the  confederation,  and  it  will  also  contain  the  survival  of 
the  fittest  of  all  the  institutions  of  the  old  Churches.  In 
other  words  the  proposed  national  Church  will  bring  forth 
out  of  its  treasure  things  both  new  and  old. 

There  should  be  no  objection  to  the  proposed  ultimate 
reorganization  of  American  Christianity  into  a national 
Church  upon  the  ground  of  the  interruption  of  continuity. 
For  continuity  is  not  broken  by  reorganization.  If  it  were 
there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  continuity  in  the  history 
of  organic  Christianity  for  all  the  ancient  Churches  have 
been  reorganized  more  than  once,  and  all  live  Churches, 
ancient  and  modern,  are  in  process  of  reorganization. 

The  Denominational  Episcopate,  in  the  case  of  each 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


177 


college  of  Bishops,  is  to  be  wholly  independent  and  auton- 
omous, except  only  in  its  relationship  to  the  other  colleges 
of  Bishops  in  the  embryonic  national  Church.  To  the 
association  effected  by  the  first  Denominational  Episco- 
pates the  Bishops  of  all  other  Denominations  will  be 
added  as  they  create  Episcopates,  and  form  colleges  of 
Bishops. 

To  this  incorporation  of  Denominational  Bishops  would 
be  deeded  all  ecclesiastical  property  intended  for  the  use 
of  the  Christian  public.  For  instance,  if  the  Christians 
of  a city  should  build  a hospital,  the  property  would  be 
deeded  to  “ The  United  Church  of  the  United  States,” 
and  all  Christians  of  that  place  would  work  through  com- 
mittees of  their  respective  Churches  for  the  establishment, 
equipment  and  development  of  this  highly  desirable  philan- 
thropic institution. 

The  Inter-Church  National  council  of  Bishops  would, 
no  doubt,  as  the  result  of  their  conferences,  plan  and  carry 
through  the  legislative  bodies  of  the  several  Churches  an 
equitable  arrangement  for  the  division  of  the  foreign  mis- 
sion fields  between  the  Denominations  represented  in  the 
council  by  an  Episcopal  college.  In  the  course  of  time 
there  would  be  brought  about  in  this  way  a consolidation 
of  Churches  in  rural  communities  and  small  villages  in  the 
home  country,  so  as  to  afford  them  better  pastoral  care  and 
more  regular  services. 

While  our  divisions  are  kept  up  the  Pastors  of  the 
Churches  are  not  able  to  minister  satisfactorily  to  the  peo- 
ple. There  is  a great  demand  for  good  preaching  and  many 
of  our  Churches  are  almost  empty  because  this  demand  is 


178 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


not  met.  But  how  can  a Clergyman  who  is  expected  to 
be  a preacher,  pastor  and  Sunday  School  superintendent, 
do  the  work  that  is  necessary  for  the  production  of  great 
sermons,  especially  if  he  is  expected  to  preach  twice  on 
Sunday,  conduct  a Bible  class,  and  perhaps  have  two  or 
three  addresses  in  the  course  of  a week?  It  is  simply  out 
of  the  question  that  one  so  burdened  with  distracting  rou- 
tine work  should  be  able  to  make  the  most  of  the  pulpit. 

In  busine.ss  concerns,  it  would  be  considered  absurd  to 
expect  so  much  of  any  one  person.  Great  businesses  are 
divided  up  into  departments,  with  their  heads  and  corps 
of  workers.  Christian  teaching  and  work  is  a great  busi- 
ness, and  yet  this  most  important  of  all  businesses  is  now 
conducted  along  lines  that  could  not  possibly  succeed  in 
ordinary  undertakings.  As  has  often  been  pointed  out, 
among  the  proofs  of  the  Divinity  of  Christianity  is  the 
fact  that  it  accomplishes  so  much  under  such  a poor 
system. 

If  one  is  to  be  a great  preacher,  he  must  devote  his  time 
to  his  sermons.  He  must  be  encouraged  in  his  work  by 
large  congregations,  which  will  give  him  inspiration  while 
he  is  preparing  his  sermons  and  delivering  them.  He  must 
have  comfortable  surroundings,  new  books,  and  the  oppor- 
tunities for  travel  and  seeing  something  of  the  world,  which 
can  only  be  had  by  those  who  have  a comfortable  living. 
No  man  ought  to  be  expected  to  preach  more  than  one 
sermon  a week. 

There  is  also  a great  demand  for  pastoral  work,  fre- 
quent house  to  house  visiting,  and  attentive  and  comfort- 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


179 


Ing  ministrations  to  the  sick.  The  average  Pastor  who  is 
obliged  to  do  all  the  preaching  on  Sunday  and  make  two 
or»  three  addresses  at  week  day  services,  and  who  has  the 
details  connected  with  the  organization  of  the  Parish  to 
look  after,  cannot  adequately  visit  all  the  members  of  a 
large  congregation  and  minister  to  its  sick. 

The  children  of  Protestants  are  being  sadly  neglected 
in  the  matter  of  systematic,  comprehensive  instruction. 
The  religious  part  of  their  training  is  largely  confined  to 
an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a half  a week  in  Sunday  School ; 
and  many  of  the  Sunday  Schools,  as  compared  with 
public  schools,  are  very  poor  institutions.  There  is,  there- 
fore, great  need  of  a Sunday  School  expert  connected  with 
every  large  Parish.  He  should  be  a Clergyman  who  has 
made  a special  study  of  Sunday  School  work,  and  who  is 
unusually  qualified  to  attract  and  hold  the  attention  of 
children,  and  to  organize  and  develop  a great  religious 
school.  Not  only  should  such  a man  be  at  the  head  of 
every  school,  but  he  should  have  an  adequately  large  corps 
of  efficient  helpers,  with  whom  he  could  have  at  least  one 
meeting  every  week  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  them 
to  teach  effectively  and  carry  out  his  system. 

The  concentration  of  Christian  educational  undertak- 
ings that  would  result  from  Church  union  would  be  a 
great  advantage  over  the  present  system  of  doing  this  most 
important  work.  Perhaps  this  would  be  more  especially 
true  of  the  theological  education  of  men  for  the  Christian 
ministry.  Instead  of  having  in  each  state  many  incom- 
pletely equipped,  poorly  supported  and  sllmly  attended 


180 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


“Schools  of  the  Prophets,”  we  would  have  groups  of  states 
combined  in  the  support  of  one  great,  completely  endowed 
seminary  of  sacred  learning,  with  a full  corps  of  higli 
grade  professors,  and  with  ten  times  as  many  students  as 
are  now  attending  any  one  of  the  sectarian  seminaries  of 
the  same  territory.  Moreover,  the  professors  and  stu- 
dents would  represent  all  orthodox  Churches;  and  such 
a coming  together  would  have  beneficial  results  of  great 
value  in  many  directions. 

As  time  went  on,  our  Denominational  Churches  would 
gradually  lose  interest  in  themselves,  and  center  it  on  the 
national  Church,  which  would  increase  while  they  would 
decrease. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  United  Church  of  our 
country  would  be  organized  on  strictly  Democratic  or 
Republican  principles,  so  that  there  would  be  no  more 
danger  of  the  repetition  of  the  evils  of  Sacerdotalism  in 
the  Church  than  there  is  danger  of  the  repetition  of  the 
evils  of  Imperialism  in  our  government. 

One  of  the  fundamental  assumptions  of  this  plan  is  that 
Christian  unity  in  the  twentieth  century  must  commence 
at  the  top  and  work  down,  as  it  did  in  the  first  and  second 
centuries.  Christianity  would  have  been  sectarian  from 
the  beginning  without  the  unifying  influence  in  turn  of 
the  colleges  of  the  Apostolate,  Presbyterate  and  Episco- 
pate. And  Protestant  Christians,  it  seems  to  me,  must 
continue  sectarian,  unless  we  create  an  Inter-denomina- 
tional college  of  Bishops  which  will  take  the  place  of 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


181 


the  successive  colleges  of  Apostles  and  Presbyters  and 
Bishops  in  the  early  Church. 

I feel  certain  that,  when  the  proposed  national  Church 
is  once  inaugurated,  the  heads  of  its  Common  Ministry, 
the  Denominational  colleges  of  Bishops,  in  council  as- 
sembled, will  find  and  indicate  ways  by  which  it  will  be 
possible  to  organize  a mighty  Inter-denominational  conven- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Churches  of  the  United  States,  in 
which  all  the  Bishops  and  a multitude  of  representative 
Pastors  and  Laymen  will  take  part.  Then  will  follow 
an  unofficial  International  Congress  of  National  Churches, 
and  next,  in  comparatively  quick  succession  an  official 
Ecumenical  council,  the  one  folding,  one  shepherding  and 
one  united,  successful  effort  for  the  conversion  of  the 
world. 

The  Quadrilateral  and  the  Level  Plan  are  alike,  in 
that  they  look  to  the  Protestant  Churches,  rather  than  to  the 
Roman  “ Catholic  ” Church,  for  setting  on  foot  and  sus- 
taining a progressive  and  successful  Church  unity  move- 
ment. Anglican  “ Catholics  ” would  begin  the  work  of 
unification  at  the  Roman  end  of  the  line,  while  I,  follow- 
ing the  lead  of  the  Anglican  Communion  in  her  Quadri- 
lateral enactment,  would  begin  at  the  Protestant  end  of  it. 

The  two  plans,  the  Quadrilateral  and  the  Level,  are 
in  principle  the  same  also,  in  this  important  respect  that 
they  recognize  the  fact  that  the  Churches  can  come  to- 
gether neither  on  the  basis  of  a Sacerdotal  system  of  doc- 
trine, such  as  is  held  by  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches 


182 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


nor  upon  the  Protestant,  non-Sacerdotal  confessions  of 
faith. 

If  Christians  ever  come  together  into  that  spiritual  and 
organic  unity  for  which  the  Lord  prayed  and  upon  which 
He  made  the  conquest  of  the  world  for  Him  to  depend, 
it  will  be  upon  an  institutional,  not  a doctrinal  basis;  and 
the  only  institution  which  can  afford  the  basis  for  such 
unity  is  a national  council  of  Inter-Church  Bishops.  If 
Protestants  generally  were  to  add  a national  Episcopate 
to  their  Ministries,  and  if  Rome  were  to  uncover  her 
national  Episcopates  by  eliminating  the  Papacy,  the 
federation  of  all  the  orthodox  Churches  of  Christendom 
into  great  national  Churches,  and  Into  one  stupendous 
international  Communion,  might  easily  take  place  before 
the  close  of  the  twentieth  century. 

The  Level  Plan  contemplates  the  confederation  of  all 
the  Protestant  Churches  of  every  country  Into  one  national 
Protestant  Church;  and  ultimately  for  the  entrance  into 
this  confederation  by  the  republicanized  or  modernized 
Roman  Church.  This  being  done  we  would  have  through- 
out Christendom  mighty  national.  Catholic  Churches. 
These  national  Churches  would  be  bound  together  by  an 
inter-communion  through  a great  world  council,  or  con- 
ference, such  as  now  exists  between  the  different  Churches 
of  the  Anglican  Communion. 

If,  then,  the  common,  Inter-Church  Episcopate  is  the 
heart  of  The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union,  its  body  is 
the  National  and  International  Council  of  Bishops. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


183 


III. 

Since  leaving  the  Sacerdotal  ranks,  I have  insisted  that 
ecclesiastical  unity  must  have  the  rock  of  Republicanism 
for  its  foundation.  I thought  I had  discovered  this  abso- 
lutely requisite  basis,  when,  in  1904,  while  studying  the 
Afro-American  problem,  I conceived  the  idea  of  denom- 
inationalizing  the  Anglican  Episcopate  by  a one-sided 
ordination.  But  there  was  something  about  this  arrange- 
ment with  which  I grew  more  and  more  dissatisfied. 

The  cause  of  my  dissatisfaction  was  the  fact  that  the 
idea  of  one  Church  being  able  to  give  something  to  another 
Church,  say  the  “ Historic  ” Episcopate,  which  it  could 
not  otherwise  possess,  is,  so  far  as  the  underlying  principle 
is  concerned,  as  really  Sacerdotal  in  character  as  the 
belief  that  Gospel  grace,  and  even  salvation  itself,  is  in 
some  way  inseparably  connected  with  a Priesthood  which 
historically  has  been  devoluted  from  the  Lord  Jesus  and 
His  Apostles. 

My  plan  for  Church  union  has  always  hinged  upon  a 
Common  Inter-Church  Ministry.  From  the  first  I saw 
that  this  Ministry  must  be  of  the  Episcopal  type.  But 
for  several  years  I supposed  that  it  must  be  of  the  “ His- 
toric” Episcopal  type.  While  endeavoring  to  prove  this 
to  be  the  case,  my  investigations  and  reasonings  gradually 
forced  upon  me  the  conviction  that  I was  fundamentally 
wrong  in  this  assumption,  because  the  basic  principle  of 
Gospel  Republicanism  is,  that  all  men  are  essentially  equal 


184 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


and  that  the  same  is  therefore  necessarily  true  of  all  socie- 
ties of  men,  whether  domestic,  civil  or  ecclesiastical. 

Having  been  forced  to  this  point  of  view,  I was  grad- 
ually driven  to  another  position  from  which  I saw  that 
the  vastly  predominating  constituency  in  nearly  all  the 
English-speaking  Protestant  Churches  believe  that  the 
Ministry  of  their  respective  Churches  is  as  good  as  that 
of  any  other  Church  whatsoever,  ancient  or  modern;  and 
that,  therefore,  if  Church  union  is  dependent  upon  a one- 
sided reordination  by  which  all  Protestant  Churches  will 
be  given  the  same  Ministry  of  the  “ Historic  ” Episcopal 
type  by  the  Anglican  Churches,  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity and  the  facts  of  Christian  history  being  what  they 
are,  and  human  nature  being  what  it  is,  hope  for  the 
unification  of  Christendom  must  be  abandoned  forever. 

Since  things  have  gone  so  far  in  the  direction  of  Re- 
publicanism, the  opinion  that  the  Ministry  of  one  Church 
is  in  any  respect  to  the  slightest  degree  essentially  superior 
to  that  which  is  either  already  possessed  by  other  Churches 
or  may  be  created  by  them  for  themselves  will  never  again 
prevail.  Therefore,  there  was  nothing  for  me  to  do  but 
to  give  up  the  idea  that  the  chief  problem  of  my  plan  for 
Church  union,  which  problem  is  how  to  secure  a Common, 
Inter-Church,  unifying  Ministry,  can  be  solved  by  a one- 
sided reordination. 

When  this  became  a settled  conviction,  I took  up  with 
the  idea  of  the  Archbishop  of  Melbourne,  as  presented  by 
one  of  the  most  able  among  my  many  sympathetic  critics, 
that  there  was  no  way  by  which  the  goal  of  Christian 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


185 


unity  could  be  reached,  except  that  of  a reciprocal  reor- 
dination. But  ultimately  I reached  a point  where  I saw 
that,  in  principle,  there  really  was  no  difference  between  a 
one-sided  reordination  and  a reciprocal  reordination,  for  in 
both  cases  the  assumption  would  be  that  ministerial  char- 
acter of  som*e  kind  and  degree  is  given  by  ordination ; and 
this  is  the  assumption  of  Sacerdotalism,  not  of  Republican- 
ism, having  for  its  basis  tradition,  not  history. 

The  realization  of  the  identity  of  the  one-sided  re- 
ordination and  the  reciprocal  reordination  methods  of 
securing  the  Common  Ministry  which  from  the  beginning 
was  the'essential  feature  of  my  plan  for  Church  union,  was 
a growth  which  did  not  reach  full  development  until  I 
had  worked  nearly  through  the  first  draft  of  this  book; 
but  from  the  time  that  it  began  to  take  possession  of  me, 
I commenced  to  see  more  and  more  clearly  that  an  Inter- 
Church  Ministry  could  never  be  secured  by  a Sacerdotal 
reordination  of  any  kind. 

The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  as  I have  finally 
worked  it  out,  does  not  rest  on  either  the  clay  of  a one-sided 
reordination,  or  on  the  shale  of  a reciprocal  reordination, 
both  of  which  were  found  to  be  insecure  Sacerdotal  foun- 
dations; but  upon  the  solid  rock  of  a purely  Republican 
Inter-Church  National  council  in  which  the  Ministry  of 
every  orthodox  Church  will  be  represented  on  an  exact 
level.  This  council,  according  to  the  plan  would  make 
provision  for  a representative  Ordaining  Committee, 
through  which  all  the  Churches,  without  compromise  of 
principle,  would  in  the  course  of  a single  generation  have 
the  same  Ministry. 


186 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


According  to  this  plan  as  it  now  securely  stands  on  the 
rock  of  pure  Gospel  Republicanism,  if,  for  example,  the 
Presbyterian  Church  desires  an  Episcopate  like  that  of 
the  Methodist  Church,  her  official  representatives  will  not 
ask  the  Methodist  Church  to  consecrate  such  Bishops  for 
her,  but  she  will  elect  and  consecrate  them  for  herself. 
It  IS  true  that  when  this  Episcopate  has  been  created  it 
will  not  be  the  Methodist  Episcopate.  It  is  equally  true, 
however,  that  the  consecration  of  its  representatives  by 
Methodist  Bishops  would  not  have  made  it  a Methodist 
Episcopate.  Organic  Methodism  is  non-transferable. 

The  Episcopate  of  the  Methodist  Church  has  a history. 
As  far  as  it  goes,  its  history  is  just  as  historic  as  that  of 
the  oldest  Episcopate  in  the  world.  But  the  historicity 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopate  could  not  by  ordination  be 
conveyed  to  a newly  created  Presbyterian  Episcopate. 
The  Presbyterian  Episcopate  would  have  a history  begin- 
ning with  the  day  of  its  creation ; but  it  would  be  its  own 
history.  The  quality  of  historicity  is  like  the  quality  of 
personal  identity.  As  no  two  persons  can  have  the  same 
identity,  so  no  two  institutions  can  have  the  same  history. 

Now  there  is  no  more  reason  for  believing  that  the  his- 
toricity of  the  Episcopate  of  any  branch  of  the  Anglican 
Communion  can  be  conveyed  to  the  Episcopate  of  any 
other  Church,  than  that  the  historicity  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopate  can  be  conveyed  to  the  Episcopate  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  truth  is  that  the  Anglo-Amer- 
ican Church  does  not  possess  the  same  “ Historic  ” Epis- 
copate as  that  of  the  mother  Church  of  England.  The 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


187 


claim  that  two  institutions  like  the  Episcopates  of  the 
English  and  American  Churches  can,  in  any  real  sense, 
have  the  same  history  is  as  fictitious  as  would  be  the  claim 
that  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  have  the  same  history. 

Indeed,  even  in  the  same  Church,  historicity  cannot  be 
conveyed  from  one  Bishop  to  another  by  consecration. 
Each  Bishop  has  his  own  Episcopal  history  which,  under 
the  guidance  of  Divine  providence,  he  makes  for  himself. 
Every  Bishop  has  a history  but  no  Bishop  ever  receives 
Episcopal  historicity  at  ordination.  Strictly  speaking  then, 
there  is  no  such  institution  as  the  “ Historic  ” Episcopate 
in  a collective  sense,  any  more  than  there  is  an  historic 
Presbyterate,  or  an  historic  Diaconate.  Historicity,  like 
personality,  is  non-transferable. 

The  Historic  Episcopate  is  not  in  itself,  as  Sacerdo- 
talists  would  have  us  believe,  a treasure  or  asset  of  some 
kind  on  account  of  which  a claim  to  superiority  can  be  set 
up  and  sustained  for  either  the  institution  as  a whole  or 
for  the  individual  representatives  of  it  in  particular.  His- 
toricity in  a Church  and  its  Ministry  constitute  no  better 
claim  to  superiority  over  Churches  which  are  without  it, 
than  does  historicity  in  a family  and  its  servants  constitute 
a basis  for  such  a claim. 

With  the  growth  of  Republicanism,  utility,  rather  than 
age,  is  becoming  more  and  more  the  standard  by  which, 
in  all  departments  of  the  social  realm,  claims  to  superiority 
are  judged.  It  is  to  the  discredit  of  an  old  Family,  State 
or  Church,  if  it  does  not  do  more  for  its  representatives  and 


188 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN, 


the  world  than  is  done  by  a comparatively  new  institution 
of  the  same  kind;  for  the  old  should  have  acquired  an 
ability  to  do  things  which  would  place  it  above  the  new. 

But  the  interest  of  the  Lord  Jesus  was  in  the  new  rather 
than  the  old.  The  very  word  Gospel  is  gilded  with  new- 
ness. He  came  to  proclaim  the  gospel  of  “ the  good 
new,”  not  the  Gospel  of  “ the  good  old.”  And  the  key 
word  of  the  good  news  of  Christ’s  Gospel  is  “ regenera- 
tion, ” the  root  meaning  of  which  is  a renewal  of  the  old. 
The  world’s  salvation  depends  upon  its  regeneration  or 
renewal.  Old  things  must  become  new.  There  must  be 
a new  heaven  and  a new  earth.  All  this  newness,  regen- 
eration, reorganization,  renewal,  is  necessary  to  save  the 
world. 

Thus  there  is  no  superiority  in  the  old  “ Historic  ” 
Episcopate,  as  such,  any  more  than  there  is  in  the  historic 
heaven  and  earth,  as  such.  If  they  may  be  replaced  by 
the  new,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  Historic  Episcopate 
may  not  give  place  to  a new  Episcopate.  The  fatal  mis- 
take of  Sacerdotalists  is  that  they  attach  a value  to  the 
old  that  does  not  belong  to  it  and  is  contrary  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Gospel.  The  future  is  with  the  new. 

The  Episcopate  as  an  official  institution  has  existed  for  a 
long  time,  longer  I think,  than  the  Presbyterial  or  Diac- 
onal  office.  According  to  my  theory  the  Episcopate  was 
the  first  development  of  ministerial  officialism  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  There  were  an  Episcopate,  Presbyterate 
and  Diaconate  in  .the  New  Testament  Church,  but  they 
were  largely  of  an  unofficial  character. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


189 


So  far  as  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  is  concerned  we 
know  who  were  its  first  Bishops  and  Deacons.  We  also 
know  some  of  the  Elders  of  that  Church.  But  the  Epis- 
copate of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  of  which  we  have  an 
account  in  the  New  Testament,  was  not  an  official  insti- 
tution. The  Apostles,  the  first  Bishops,  were  not  officers 
but  leaders.  This  is  also  true  of  Presbyters  and  Deacons. 
The  Presbyterate  and  Diaconate  as  official  institutions 
did  not  come  into  existence  until  after  the  Episcopate  had 
assumed  a monarchial  and  official  character,  and  this  was 
not  in  New  Testament  times. 

Ignatius  was  the  father  of  official  Episcopacy.  But 
such  an  Episcopate  was  not  in  existence  in  his  time.  In 
his  celebrated  epistles,  Ignatius,  who  was  martyred,  prob- 
ably in  the  year  1 1 7,  almost  vehemently  prophesied  the 
necessity  of  a Congregational  Episcopacy  to  that  unity  of 
the  Church  which  was  felt  to  be  necessary  to  its  preserva- 
tion and  extension.  But  historical  criticism  has  shown  that 
the  Congregational  Episcopate  of  which  Ignatius  prophe- 
sied in  his  epistles  was  not  in  existence  any  more  than  is 
the  Inter-Church  Episcopate,  the  necessity  of  which  to 
the  universal  extension  and  full  development  of  the  Chris- 
tian civilization  I am  prophesying  in  this  book.  The 
Congregational  Episcopate  as  an  official  institution  was  not 
fully  developed  and  firmly  established  as  such  until  the 
time  of  the  great  Cyprian,  who  also  died  as  a martyr  more 
than  one  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Ignatius. 

No  doubt  there  was  an  embryonic  semi-official  Congre- 
gational Episcopate  in  many  Churches  at  the  death  of  Ig- 


190 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


natius,  but  there  is  a vast  difference  between  an  embryonic 
institution  and  one  which  is  fully  developed.  I now  hold 
in  my  hand  an  acorn.  It  is  an  embryonic  oak ; but  a hun- 
dred years  hence  no  man  will  hold  in  his  hand  that  mon- 
arch of  the  forest  which  will  owe  its  existence  to  this 
embryo. 

The  Inter-Church  Episcopate  for  which  I am  pleading 
as  earnestly  and  persistently  as  Ignatius  pleaded  for  a 
Congregational  Episcopate,  and  as  Cyprian  pleaded  for 
an  Inter-Congregational  Episcopate  exists  in  a more  or 
less  fully  developed  form  in  every  Church  in  Christen- 
dom. 

The  Baptist  Church  is  perhaps  the  largest  among  the 
Congregational  Churches,  and  it  is  probably  the  most  in- 
tensely Republican  of  them  all.  But  even  the  Baptist 
Church  has  the  Congregational  Episcopate  for  which  Ig- 
natius pleaded.  The  Baptist  Church  also  has  an  institu- 
tion, or  at  least  custom,  resembling  the  Inter-Congrega- 
tional Episcopate  which  was  secured  in  precisely  the  same 
way  as  the  Inter-Congregational  Episcopate  was  secured 
by  Cyprian,  that  is,  by  the  union  of  the  official  representa- 
tives of  local  congregations  in  particular  sections  of  a coun- 
try into  Associations.  In  forming  such  Associations,  the 
Baptists  recognized  and  Indorsed  not  only  the  principle,  but 
also  the  method  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union ; for 
in  this  way  they  unified  the  separate  independent  congre- 
gations. The  Level  Plan  proposes  to  do  essentially  the 
same  thing  for  the  separate.  Independent  Christian  De- 
nominations. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


191 


The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter,  then,  is  that  if  the 
Inter-Church  Episcopate  and  Common,  unifying  Ministry, 
upon  which  so  much  is  dependent,  is  secured  in  the  twen- 
tieth century,  it  will  be  by  the  same  method  by  which  it 
was  secured  in  the  third  century,  that  is,  through  coun- 
cils and  not  through  ordinations. 


IV. 

In  the  light  of  what  has  now  been  said,  I believe  that 
the  following  statement  covering  three  points  will  make 
my  Inter-Church  Episcopate  Plan  for  the  reunion  of 
Christendom  perfectly  clear. 

1 . The  work  of  unifying  Christendom  must  begin  with 
Protestantism.  In  interpreting  the  fourth  article  of  the 
Church’s  Quadrilateral  plan,  I have  proceeded  upon  the 
theory  that  the  future  of  every  department  of  civilization 
is  with  Republicanism  or  Protestantism  and  not  with  Im- 
perialism or  Sacerdotalism. 

In  the  realm  of  religion,  Protestantism  stands  for  Re- 
publicanism, and  Romanism  for  Imperialism.  Therefore, 
until  Romanism  becomes  modernized  by  republicaniza- 
tion,  it  will  continue  to  be  a divisive  rather  than  a unifying 
force.  Hence,'  those  who  are  hoping  for  the  unity  of 
Christendom  through  union  with  the  Roman  Church,  are 
doomed  to  disappointment.  Romanism  will  inevitably  be 
republlcanized,  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  modernized, 
but  not  until  Protestantism  forces  Republicanism  upon  It; 


192 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN, 


and  this  Protestantism  will  do  as  soon  as  it  is  itself  suffi- 
ciently unified. 

The  unification  of  Christendom,  according  to  my  plan 
for  Church  Union,  must  be  begun,  continued,  and  ended 
with  pure,  unadulterated  Republicanism. 

2.  Having  determined  that  the  movement  looking 
towards  the  unification  of  Christendom,  must  be  of  a purely 
Republican,  Protestant  character,  it  remains  to  decide 
which  among  the  Protestant  Churches  will  or  should  take 
the  lead  in  this  movement?  It  is  my  conviction  that  this 
leadership  naturally  belongs  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  that,  if  we 
are  wise,  we  may  have  it.  I hold  to  this  conviction  for 
three  reasons. 

( 1 ) This  country  is  naturally  the  place  for  the  be- 
ginning of  a world-wide  Republican  movement,  such  as  is 
necessary  for  the  bringing  of  the  Churches  together. 

(2)  The  Episcopal  Church  is  the  American  branch 
of  the  Mother  Church  of  the  English-speaking  race,  which 
race  is  the  great  republicanizing  and  unifying  power  of 
the  world. 

(3)  The  Anglican  Communion,  of  which  our  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  is  a branch,  occupies  the  middle 
ground  between  the  extremes  of  Romanism  and  Prot- 
estantism, and,  therefore  is  the  most  eligible  mediator 
between  them. 

It  would  really  seem  that  the  English-speaking  people 
have  been  raised  up,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  for  the 
purpose  of  serving  as  the  link  which  is  to  bind  together 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


193 


the  nations  and  Churches  of  the  world.  This  is  pre- 
eminently the  Republican  era  in  the  history  of  mankind, 
and  this  people  is  almost  everywhere  above  all  others,  the 
most  conservative  and  efficient  exponent  and  promoter  of 
Republicanism. 

The  English-speaking  people  are  rapidly  spreading 
all  over  the  face  of  the  earth.  In  the  year  1800  the 
world’s  English-speaking  population  was  twenty  millions; 
in  1900,  it  was  a hundred  and  twenty  millions,  showing 
the  astonishing  increase  of  one  hundred  millions  within  a 
single  century.  There  never  has  been  anything  like 
this  growth  in  the  case  of  any  race.  In  the  same  period 
the  Germans,  the  next  most  rapidly  growing  people,  in- 
creased from  thirty  to  seventy-five  millions,  a net  gain 
of  only  forty-five  millions,  as  against  the  one  hundred  mil- 
lions of  the  English.  The  French  gained  about  thirty 
millions,  and  the  Spanish  sixteen  millions.  * 

The  whole  movement  toward  Church  unity  has  for  its 
goal  the  evangelization  of  the  world.  I believe  that  God 
has  raised  up  the  English-speaking  people  to  take  the 
leadership  in  this  work.  Of  all  the  money  spent  in  foreign 
mission  fields,  eighty-five  per  cent  is  given  by  this  people. 

But,  all  the  gold  and  silver  in  Christendom  would 
not  evangelize  the  one  thousand  millions  who  have 
not  heard  the  Gospel  as  long  as  the  Church  remains  di- 
vided; and  undoubtedly,  for  the  reasons  just  stated,  we 
may  look  to  English-speaking  Christians  more  hopefully 
than  to  any  others  for  that  federation  of  the  Churches 


194 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


which  is  necessary  for  the  Christianization  of  the  heathen 
nations. 

As  it  seems  to  many,  both  in  and  out  of  the  Anglican 
Communion,  of  all  the  English-speaking  Churches,  the 
Anglican  are  providentially  in  the  best  position  to  take 
the  leadership  in  the  Church  unity  movement.  The 
Anglican  Churches  constitute  the  Mother  Church  of  the 
English-speaking  race,  and,  other  things  being  at  all  equal, 
the  children  will,  in  the  long  run,  gather  back  around 
the  Mother,  rather  than  one  of  themselves. 

The  English-speaking  adherents  of  the  several  Churches 
are  in  round  numbers  as  follows : English-speaking  Meth- 
odists, all  branches,  1 8,000,000 ; English-speaking  Roman 
Catholics,  15,000,000;  English-speaking  Presbyterians 
all  branches,  12,000,000;  English-speaking  Baptists,  all 
branches,  9,000,000.  But  the  Anglican  Churches  which 
are  so  closely  bound  together  as  to  practically  form  one 
vast  co-operative,  international  federation  have  29,000- 
000  of  English-speaking  adherents. 

Therefore  all  the  Providential  indications  seem  to  point 
to  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican  Communion  as  the  natural 
leaders,  in  their  respective  countries,  of  the  great  movement 
which  has  for  its  goal  that  bringing  together  of  the 
Churches  which  is  necessary  to  the  universal  and  complete 
evangelization  of  the  world. 

We  conclude  then,  that  the  Church  unity  movement, 
must  begin  with  Protestantism,  and  that  the  beginning 
should  rightly  be  made  by  overtures  on  the  part  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  This  obligation  rests  upon 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


195 


her,  partly  because  of  the  fact  that  having  no  connection 
with  the  State,  she  is  freer  than  other  national  branches 
of  the  Anglican  Communion  to  take  the  initiative. 

3.  How  is  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to  make 
the  beginning  and  so  do  her  duty  in  becoming  the  leader 
in  the  great  Church  unity  movement?  In  the  fourth  ar- 
ticle of  her  Quadrilateral  overture  to  her  sister  and  daugh- 
ter Protestant  Churches,  which  was  made  in  the  hope  of 
bringing  about  a unity  of  federation  between  them  and 
herself,  we  have  an  official  answer  to  this  question.  I 
quote  the  article : “ The  Historic  Episcopate  locally 
adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  administration  to  the  vary- 
ing needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called  of  God  into 
the  unity  of  His  Church.” 

But  how  shall  we  thus  adapt  the  Historic  Episcopate? 
My  answer  to  this  is  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
and  briefly  stated  it  is  simply  this: 

( 1 ) Persuade  the  Churches  which  are  without  a gen- 
eral Episcopal  form  of  government  to  create  a Denom- 
inational Episcopate  of  some  kind  for  themselves,  as  the 
Methodists  and  a few  others  have  done. 

(2)  Unite  the  Historic  Denominational  Episcopates 
which  the  ancient  Churches  have  inherited,  with  the  un- 
hlstoric  Denominational  Episcopates  which  the  modern 
Churches  have  created,  through  an  incorporated,  national 
council  of  Denominational  Bishops,  in  which  all  the  Epis- 
copates, ancient  and  modern,  will  be  represented  on  a 
perfectly  level  and  equal  footing. 

In  this  way  we  may  5?cvire  to  the  Protestant  Churches 


196 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


the  necessary  Common  Inter-Church  Ministry,  which, 
under  present  conditions,  is  the  only  possible  institutional 
basis  for  the  federation  of  the  Churches, 

Note  well  that  the  union  of  the  old  and  the  new  Epis- 
copates is,  according  to  this  Level  Plan,  provided  for, 
not  by  reordination  or  even  by  the  exchange  of  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship,  but  by  the  joining  of  all  the  Bishops 
of  both  the  ancient  and  modern  Churches,  whether  dioc- 
esan like  the  Anglican,  or  non-diocesan  like  the  Metho- 
dist, on  exactly  the  same  footing  in  the  national  incor- 
porated council  of  Denominational  Bishops. 

(3)  Incorporate  this  National  Council  of  Bishops 
into  an  unofficial  association,  or  embryonic  Church  to  be 
known  in  this  country  as  the  United  Church  of  the  United 
States,  and  in  other  countries  by  analogous  names. 

Until  that  day  of  unity,  for  which  the  Lord  prayed  and 
for  which  His  disciples  of  every  name  are  praying,  dawns 
each  separate  Denomination  may,  in  accordance  with  the 
Level  Plan,  retain  its  distinctive  name  and  organization. 
There  would  be  no  organic  connection  between  the  sev- 
eral Protestant  Churches  except  an  embryonic,  national  or- 
ganism at  the  top,  created  by  the  unofficial  association  on 
an  entirely  equal  footing  of  the  Episcopal  representatives 
of  the  several  completely  autonomous,  Denominational 
Churches. 

This  embryonic  unofficial  association  of  autonomous. 
Denominational  Episcopates  would  no  doubt,  with  time, 
take  on  more  and  more  of  an  official  character;  but  the 
whole  trend  of  things  in  every  department  of  the  social 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


197 


realm  in  this  age,  and  especially  in  this  country,  should  be 
a sufficient  guarantee  that  whatever  legislative  and  ad- 
ministrative rights  were  ultimately  accorded  to  the  pro- 
posed national  Inter-Church  Council  of  Denominational 
Bishops  would  be  administered  along  the  lines  of  extreme 
Republican  principles,  and  that  all  developments  which 
would  come  about  as  time  went  on  would  be  along  those 
lines. 

The  proposed  Denominational  Episcopate  would,  at  the 
beginning  be  almost  exactly  analogous  to  the  Congrega- 
tional Episcopate  which  commenced  to  take  form  in  the 
sub-apostolic  period  and  developed  so  rapidly  that  within 
two  hundred  years  from  the  Ascension  it  prevailed  almost 
if  not  quite  universally.  The  trend  of  that  Congrega- 
tional, Republican  Episcopate  was,  owing  to  the  age  in 
which  it  arose,  and  the  government  under  which  it  flour- 
ished naturally  and  almost  irresistibly  in  the  direction  of 
Sacerdotal  Imperialism.  The  trend  of  the  Denomina- 
tional Episcopate  which  I am  proposing  would,  with  equal 
inevitableness,  be  toward  non-Sacerdotal  Republicanism, 

In  view  of  the  underlying  principles  by  which  the  social 
realm  in  all  its  departments  is  governed  and  of  the  con- 
sequent history  of  officialism,  I am  quite  ready  to  admit 
that  the  logical  result  of  the  creation  of  the  Common  In- 
ter-Church Ministry  in  accordance  with  the  provision  of 
the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  would  be,  after  a long 
period  of  development,  a highly  concentrated  government 
under  one  headship,  in  outward  form  closely  resembling 
the  Roman  Church  with  its  Papal  head. . 


198 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


But  there  is  no  prospect  of  such  an  Issue  which  affords 
any  secure  basis  for  an  objection  to  the  plan.  For  it  is 
the  heart,  not  the  head  and  body  of  Romanism  that  is 
wrong.  The  carrying  out  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  would  convert  the  old  imperialistic  heart,  and  then, 
this  conversion  having  taken  place,  we  should  have  in  the 
Roman  Church  the  best  conceivable  body  and  head  for 
the  new  Catholicism. 

The  difficulty  with  Romanism  is  not  the  unity  of  its 
headship,  but  the  Imperialism  thereof.  Of  course,  if 
Christendom  is  to  be  unified,  it  must  have  an  official  head, 
and  I am  strongly  inclined  to  think  that  the  ultimate  form 
of  that  headship  must  bear  some  outward,  general  resem- 
blance to  that  of  the  Roman  Church.  In  any  event,  it 
must  be  a headship  which  is  nearly,  if  not  quite,  as  much 
a center  of  unity  to  Christendom  at  large,  as  the  Papacy  is 
to  the  Roman  Communion. 

If  then  the  Papacy  itself  were  a Republican  institution, 
and  if  it  were  identified  with  the  dominant  Christian  peo- 
ple of  the  world,  it  might  with  much  show  of  reason,  be 
held  up  as  the  logical  center  of  the  ecclesiastical  unity 
of  which  the  Kindgom  of  Christ  stands  in  such  great  need. 
But  the  future  of  every  department  of  civilization,  domes- 
tic, civil  and  religious,  is  with  Republicanism;  and  the 
English-speaking  peoples  are  the  great  exponents  and 
champions  of  Republicanism.  Therefore  until  this  spirit 
of  Imperialism  gives  place  to  that  of  Republicanism,  the 
Papacy  and  its  hierarchy  will  be  useless  or  worse  as  an 
instrumentality  for  the  unification  of  Christendom. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


199 


V. 

The  creation  without  reordination  of  an  Interdenomi- 
national Episcopate  for  each  country  through  a national 
council  to  which  the  representatives  of  the  inherited  Epis- 
copates of  the  ancient  Churches  and  those  of  the  newly 
created  Episcopates  of  the  modern  Churches  would  be 
admitted  without  distinction  between  them,  has  an  immense 
advantage  as  a unifying  measure  over  the  proposal  to  de- 
nominationalize  the  Anglo-American  Episcopate,  by  a 
one-sided  or  even  a reciprocal  reordination;  for  it  would 
attain  the  same  ends  and  yet  do  away  with  the  embarrass- 
ing necessity  for  making  a claim  of  any  kind  in  favor  of 
the  Episcopate  of  the  Anglican  Churches,  which  would 
be  «ure  to  be  called  in  question  by  the  other  Protestant 
Churches  and  so  hinder,  rather  than  promote,  unity. 

If,  however,  the  older  Episcopate,  in  accordance  with 
the  claim  of  Sacerdotalists,  has  a conveyable  gift  which  the 
newer  Episcopates  have  not,  the  Chicago-Lambeth  Plan, 
as  interpreted  and  applied  by  me,  provides  for  the  exten- 
sion of  it  to  all,  not  by  a reordination  of  the  Bishops  already 
consecrated,  but  through  the  ordination  of  future  Bishops 
by  an  ordaining  committee  or  commission  in  which  would 
be  represented  both  the  old  and  the  new  Episcopates. 

Such  an  arrangement  ought  to  be  acceptable  to  our 
sister  and  daughter  Protestant  Churches,  for  it  would  be 
perfectly  level  and  square.  It  should  also  be  satisfactory 
to  the  “Catholic”  school  of  the  Anglican  Communion;  for 


200 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


it  is  in  exact  alignment  with  primitive  precedent,  and  if 
adopted,  it  would  give  the  Anglican  strand  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Succession,  if  there  is  any  such  strand,  to  the  whole 
of  American  Protestantism,  and  to  the  Protestantism  of 
every  English-speaking  country,  within  a single  generation. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  “ Catholics  ” this  should  appear 
to  be  a most  happy  consummation,  for  it  would,  on  their 
theory,  with  the  least  possible  delay,  secure  valid  Sacra- 
ments to  millions  upon  millions  who  are  now  suffering,  if 
not  indeed  perishing,  for  the  lack  of  them. 

When  the  relationship  is  consummated  which  the  Level 
Plan  for  bringing  the  Churches  together  contemplates,  the 
reciprocal  benefits  that  will  accrue,  as  the  result  of  the 
union  of  the  old  with  the  new  Churches,  will  be  analogous 
to  the  reciprocal  benefits  of  the  marriage  of  an  old  with  a 
new  family.  Such  unions  have  often  proven  to  be  of  in- 
estimable benefit  to  both  families,  increasing  their  influ- 
ence, and  issuing  in  a new  family  of  much  greater  vitality 
and  power  than  either  of  the  families  concerned  in  the 
union  could  otherwise  have  attained. 

A coming  together  of  the  Churches  on  the  basis  of  the 
marriage  relationship  would  be  Christian  unity  of  the  Re- 
publican type,  and  there  is  no  other  basis  upon  which  the 
unification  of  Christendom  can  take  place.  Unity  on  the 
Sacerdotal  or  Priestly  basis,  that  is,  upon  a theory  which 
makes  the  ancient  Churches  the  givers  exclusively  and  the 
modern  Churches  receivers  only,  would  be  no  more  pos- 
sible or  satisfactory  than  would  be  the  union  through  mar- 
riage of  an  ancient  and  modern  family  upon  such  a basis. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


201 


I hold  to  the  conviction  that  the  Common  Ministry,  upon 
which  the  unification  of  Christendom  is  dependent,  must 
be  of  the  Episcopal  type.  But  I do  not  hold  that  it  must 
or  can  be  exclusively  of  the  “Historic”  Episcopate  type. 
I regard  the  Episcopate  as  being  Divine  and  indispen- 
sable, not  because  of  its  historicity,  but  because  it  is  the 
embodiment  of  the  essential  principles  of  unity  and  super- 
intendence under  one  headship,  without  which  embodi- 
ment, under  one  form  and  name  or  another,  no  great 
social  organization  of  any  kind  can  exist. 

As  the  very  constitution  of  the  social  realm  proves  the 
Divineness  of  the  principles  of  Episcopacy,  there  is  no 
necessity  for  showing  that  any  particular  embodiment  of 
the  Episcopal  principles  such  as  the  Greek,  Roman  or 
Anglican  is  a devolution  from  the  Lord  Jesus  through  His 
first  Apostles.  And  not  only  so,  but  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  all  other  embodiments  of  these  principles  in  the  do- 
mestic, civil,  ecclesiastical  and  commercial  departments  of 
the  social  realm,  of  which  embodiments  there  are  many, 
are  known  to  be  due  to  evolutionary  developments,  it 
weakens,  if  not  indeed  belittles,  any  particular  ecclesiastical 
embodiment  of  them  to  claim  for  it  a devolutionary  origin. 

Sacerdotalists  insist  that  the  Lord  Jesus  was  a King  and 
a Priest  in  the  Imperial  and  Sacerdotal  sense  of  the  terms, 
and  that  His  Kingship  and  Priesthood  were  representa- 
tively conferred  upon  His  first  Apostles  and  their  succes- 
sors. So  far  they  are  in  practical  alignment,  but  they  are 
not  agreed  as  to  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  who  in 
pur  own  time  represent  the  Divine  King  and  Priest 


203 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


The  Greek  Church,  which  is  very  largely  Sacerdotal 
in  character,  teaches  that  the  successors  of  the  first  Apos- 
tles are  the  Bishops  of  the  orthodox  Churches  who  have 
handed  down  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints  and 
bear  a continuous  unbroken  witness  to  it.  They  question 
the  orthodoxy  of  the  Roman  and  Anglican  Churches. 

The  Roman  Church  which  is  wholly  Sacerdotal  in  char- 
acter, teaches  that  the  successors  of  the  first  Apostles  are 
they  who  as  Popes  of  Rome  have  succeeded  to  the  place 
of  primacy  held  by  St.  Peter.  In  reality  this  doctrine  is 
that  none  of  the  Apostles,  except  St.  Peter,  had  successors. 

The  Sacerdotal  party  in  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican 
Communion  teaches  that  the  successors  of  the  first  Apos- 
tles are  all  Bishops  who  have  been  ordained  as  such 
by  Bishops  who  can  trace  their  succession  back  in  an  un- 
broken series  of  ordinations  to  any  among  the  original 
Apostles, 

The  Sacerdotal  party  in  the  several  Presbyterian 
Churches  say  that  the  successors  of  the  first  Apostles  are 
the  Elders  or  Presbyters  who  can  trace  their  ordination 
by  an  unbroken  series  of  ordinations  to  the  Elders-Bishops, 
that  is,  to  the  Presbyters  who  existed  before  the  rise  of  the 
monarchial  Episcopate, 

That  all  Sacerdotalists,  Greek,  Roman,  Anglican  and 
Presbyterian,  are  wrong  in  their  whole  conception  of  a 
delegated  representative  Priesthood,  is  manifest  from  the 
fact  that  their  primary  assumption  respecting  the  Kingship 
and  Priesthood  of  Christ  will  not  stand  in  the  light  of  His 
own  teaching.  There  is  no  truth  in  the  whole  realm  of 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


203 


Gospel  truths  that  can  be  more  confidently  affirmed  than 
that,  as  an  essential  part  of  His  teaching,  Jesus  proclaimed 
the  right  of  every  sinful  man  and  woman  to  go  direct  to 
God  for  pardon,  peace  and  salvation. 

How  evidently  this  is  the  case  will  appear  from  the 
Lord’s  Prayer.  On  the  Sacerdotal  hypothesis  the  prayer 
should  have  been  so  framed  that  it  would  have  been  of- 
fered in  the  Name  and  for  the  sake  of  Jesus,  so  that  His 
mediating  Priesthood  would  have  been  recognized;  but 
it  was  not  constructed  on  that  principle.  This  prayer, 
which  might  properly  be  regarded  as  the  summary  of  the 
teaching  which  Jesus  gave  to  His  disciples,  most  evidently 
proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  man’s  redemption  and 
salvation  are  dependent  upon  his  own  will  and  power  to 
draw  near  to  God,  so  that  in  securing  reconciliation  with 
God,  every  man  is  his  own  priest.  The  same  Gospel  of 
pure.  Republican  individualism  is  taught  also  by  the  Lord 
in  the  greatest  of  His  parables,  the  Prodigal  Son,  and  in 
His  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Since  Sacerdotalists  do  not  agree  as  to  the  successors 
of  the  Apostles  through  whom  we  must  go  to  God  for 
Gospel  salvation,  and  as  their  doctrine  concerning  the  ne- 
cessity for  a mediatorial  Priesthood  is  utterly  Irreconcilable 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Lord,  we  cannot  accept  their  rep- 
resentations concerning  the  devolutionary  origin  and  au- 
thority of  the  Christian  ministry. 

And  let  me  in  the  name  of  common  sense  ask,  why 
should  we  fly  in  the  face  of  modern  intelligence  and  ac- 
count for  the  Christian  ministry  on  a theory  which  takes 


204 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


it  out  of  the  realm  of  the  normal  and  diminishes  rather 
than  increases  its  chances  for  being  held  in  high  estima- 
tion as  a Divine  and  indispensable  institution? 

Educated  men,  almost  without  exception,  consider  that 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  established  and  that  it  cor- 
rectly accounts  for  the  existence  of  the  whole  of  creation  in 
both  the  spiritual  and  physical  realms.  “ Under  the  laws 
of  evolution,  ” says  an  interesting  writer  of  a book  en- 
titled, The  Scientific  Achievements  of  the  Nineteenth 
Century,  “have  been  brought  the  stellar  universe  and 
solar  and  planetary  systems,  no  less  than  the  species  of 
plant  and  animal  creation.  ’’  He  might  have  gone  on,  with 
equal  truthfulness,  to  say  that  the  existence  of  the  Family, 
the  State  and  the  Church  are  likewise  held  by  practically 
all  scientists  and  philosophers  to  be  due  to  evolutionary 
processes. 

To  account  for  the  Christian  Episcopate  upon  the  ra- 
tional theory  of  evolution  is  not,  as  Sacerdotalists  repre- 
sent, to  degrade  it  as  a human  rather  than  Divine  institu- 
tion. No  one  could  sing  Cowper’s  majestic  hymn  on  the 
witness  of  “ The  spangled  Heavens  to  their  great  Orig- 
inal, ” with  more  heart  than  an  intelligent  evolutionist  who 
believes  that  the  universe  as  we  know  it,  is  a Providential 
working  out  of  eternal  laws. 

Nor  can  any  one  take  a higher  view  of  Episcopacy  than 
that  which  enables  him  to  say  that  it  is  for  organic  Chris- 
tianity a Providential  embodiment  of  the  underlying  indis- 
pensable principles  of  unity  and  superintendence  under 
one  headship,  some  embodiment  of  which  is  necessary  to 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


205 


the  existence  of  every  form  of  social  organism  which  con- 
tributes anything  towards  the  existence  and  development 
of  civilization. 

If  we  are  to  have  a common  Inter-Church  Episcopate, 
each  Denomination  must  create  its  own  Episcopate,  and 
it  must  be  given  an  Inter-Church  character  by  union  on 
an  equal  footing  with  all  other  Episcopates  in  a National 
Inter-Church  Council.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  fact  must  be 
recognized  that  there  are  different  kinds  of  Episcopates. 

There  is  the  primitive,  Ignatian  Episcopate  which  the 
Congregational,  Presbyterian,  Baptist  and  many  other 
Churches  have.  In  fact  every  Pastor  settled  over  a con- 
gregation of  Christians  is  a representative  of  this  Episco- 
pate. Before  the  time  of  Cyprian,  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  there  was  no  other  Episcopate  in  any 
Church. 

There  is  the  diocesan  Episcopate  of  the  Anglican 
Churches.  Among  these  Churches  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  stands  somewhat  alone,  because  it  is  with- 
out the  archiepiscopal  system  in  addition  to  the  diocesan. 

There  is  the  more  complicated  diocesan,  and  patriarchal 
Episcopate,  with  intermediate  Episcopal  grades,  such  as 
the  Greek  Churches  possess. 

There  is  the  oligarchal  Episcopal  system  with  the  Pre- 
siding Elder  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Church. 

There  is  the  monarchial  Papal  Episcopal  system  of 
the  Roman  Church  with  its  simple  diocesan  and  compli- 
cated archiepiscopal  systems. 


206 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


All  these  Episcopal  systems  and  many  others  besides, 
such  as  the  Moravian,  Lutheran  and  Swedish  are  in  ex- 
istence. All  Churches  which  make  provision  for  a settled 
Pastorate,  and  for  domestic  and  foreign  missionary  Secre- 
taryships have  Episcopates  of  some  kind.  The  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union  recognizes  this  to  be  the  case  and  pro- 
vides, or  may  provide,  for  the  representation  of  every 
Church  in  the  proposed  national  incorporated  council  of 
Bishops. 

The  attainment  of  an  uniform  Episcopate  must  be  a 
development  brought  about  through  the  national  Episcopal 
council,  even  as  the  attainment  of  an  uniform  national 
Church  must  be  a development  through  that  council.  All 
that  can  be  hoped  for  in  the  way  of  uniformity  at  the  be- 
ginning is,  that  the  Churches  represented  in  the  council 
will  have  their  candidates  for  the  Ministry  ordained  by  a 
representative  committee  of  the  council  so  that,  after  the 
first  generation,  the  confederated  Churches  will  have  a 
Common  Ministry,  so  far  as  it  may  be  had  by  ordination. 

Such  a Ministry  could  be  created  in  this  way  without 
the  sacrifice  of  any  principle,  and  it  would  mark  a long 
step  towards  the  unification  of  Christendom.  If  a Church 
should,  on  principle,  or  even  strong  preference,  refuse  to 
create  a Denominational  Episcopate  to  which  the  right  to 
ordain  candidates  to  the  Ministry  is  restricted,  and  yet 
should  desire  to  be  represented  in  the  national  council,  it 
might  be  allowed  to  come  in  with  the  understanding  that 
its  candidates  for  the  Ministry  will  be  ordained  by  a com- 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


207 


mittee  of  its  Congregational  Bishops  the  members  of  which 
have  been  ordained  by  the  ordaining  committee  of  the 
central  council  or  embryonic  National  Church. 

VI. 

There  can,  I think,  be  no  doubt  that  there  never  would 
have  been  such  an  institution  as  the  Catholic  Church,  which 
flourished  from  the  middle  of  the  second  to  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  except  for  the  Provincial  coun- 
cils of  Congregational  Bishops,  the  first  of  which  appears 
to  have  been  organized  by  Cyprian,  in  which  the  Bishops 
whom  the  Congregational  Churches  had  respectively 
elected,  and  ordained  for  themselves,  were  equally  repre- 
sented, without  reordination,  or  even  the  exchange  of  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship.  And  such  an  institution  as  a 
national.  Catholic  Church,  cannot,  I think,  be  brought  into 
existence  under  present  conditions,  without  national  coun- 
cils of  Denominational  Bishops,  in  which  the  Episcopates, 
of  whatever  kind,  of  all  the  Denominations,  whether  an- 
cient or  modem,  congregational,  diocesan  or  papal,  mon- 
archial  or  oligarchal,  will  be  represented  on  the  same  level. 

It  is  an  open  secret  that  the  negotiations  looking  towards 
the  coming  together  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal 
Churches,  in  which  at  one  time  so  much  of  hope  was  cen- 
tered by  both  sides,  were  broken  off  by  the  committee  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  because  the  committee  of  our 
Church  would  not  proceed  with  them  upon  the  assumption 
of  the  essential  equality  of  the  two  Ministries. 


208 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


This  happened  about  twenty  years  ago.  Since  then  the 
study  of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry 
in  the  light  of  historical  criticism  has  advanced  apace. 
The  position  that  had  been  taken  by  Bishop  Lightfoot  and 
Professors  Hatch  and  Harnack,  as  to  the  non-Sacerdotal, 
non-Episcopal,  and  even  non-official,  character  of  the 
New  Testament  Ministry  has  been  so  completely  fortified 
by  Professors  Ramsay,  Wernle,  Lindsay,  McGiffert,  A1 
len,  Gwatkin,  Moeller,  Sabatier,  Briggs,  and  others  too 
numerous  for  mention,  that  it  probably  would  now  be  im- 
possible to  get  a representative  committee  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  that  would  have  the  assurance  to  ap- 
proach one  of  our  sister  or  daughter  Protestant  Churches 
except  on  the  level. 

One  reason  why  any  attempt  to  secure  a common  Inter- 
Church  Ministry  on  the  basis  of  Sacerdotalism,  or  Priest- 
ism  must  fail  in  this  country,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  such  a 
system  of  government  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  genius 
of  the  American  government  and  institutions.  The  ver- 
dict of  history  is  that  in  every  nation  the  form  of  Church 
government  is  largely  influenced  and  determined  by  the 
form  of  the  national  government. 

Now  Priestism  in  the  government  of  a Church  is  what 
Imperialism  is  in  the  government  of  a State.  And  as  in 
the  government  of  states.  Imperialism  is  everywhere  being 
supplanted  by  Republicanism  it  follows,  as  if  by  some 
resistless  law  regulating  the  relationship  of  civil  and  relig- 
ious governments,  that  Priestism  must  give  way  and  there- 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


209 


fore  cannot  afford  a basis  for  the  requisite  Common,  In- 
ter-Church, unifying  Ministry. 

That  which  is  necessary  in  the  Episcopate  is  unity  and 
superintendence  under  one  headship.  These  principles 
may  be  embodied  quite  as  efficiently  in  a modern  head- 
ship of  a Republican  as  in  an  ancient  headship  of  an  Im- 
perial character.  The  essential,  basic  feature  of  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  is  a Common  Min- 
istry of  the  Episcopal  type,  and  it  really  makes  no  dif- 
ference whether  the  necessary  Episcopate  is  historic  or 
un-historic,  but  as  both  are  in  existence  some  way  must 
be  found  for  uniting  them. 

The  twofold  problem  of  the  Inter-Church  Episcopate 
Plan  is  how  to  persuade  the  non-Episcopal  Churches  to 
follow  the  example  of  some  among  the  Methodist 
Churches,  and  a few  others,  in  creating  Denominational 
Episcopates  for  themselves,  and  how  to  unite  the  Episco- 
pates of  the  ancient  and  modern  Churches.  The  adoption 
of  my  suggestion  as  to  how  to  make  the  fourth  article  of 
the  Quadrilateral  effective  would  solve  this  problem. 

The  Sacerdotal  or  Priestly  contention,  that  the  Epis- 
copate is  an  institution  which  has  come  down  through  cer- 
tain Churches  from  the  Lord  Jesus  and  His  Apostles,  so 
that  other  Churches  can  have  it  only  from  them,  has  be- 
come as  unreal  and  impracticable  as  would  be  the  analo- 
gous idea  that,  if  a nation  with  an  oligarchal  form  of 
government  wants  a kingship  or  a presidency  it  must  obtain 
it  from  a nation  having  a king  or  president.  The  only  way 


210 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


for  a nation  to  change  the  headship  of  its  government  is 
by  a revolution  or  an  election. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  Episcopacy  will  never  be 
established  in  the  Protestant,  non-Episcopal  Churches  as 
the  result  of  a revolutionary  usurpation.  There  is  then 
only  one  way  in  which  a non-Episcopal  Church  can  be- 
come an  Episcopal  Church,  that  is,  by  the  election  and 
consecration  of  Bishops  for  itself,  upon  its  own  authority. 
And  the  only  way  by  which  the  ancient  and  modern  Epis- 
copates can  be  united  is  the  level  way,  that  leads  to  na- 
tional and  international  ecclesiastical  councils  in  which  all 
the  Churches  will  be  represented  by  their  Bishops  on  a 
perfectly  level  plane. 

This  would  be  true  even  if  an  Inter-Church  Episcopate 
were  to  be  created  by  the  ordination  of  Denominational 
Bishops  for  the  non-Episcopal  Churches  by  the  representa- 
tives of  the  Anglo-American  Episcopate;  because,  in  that 
case,  our  Bishops  would  have  to  rest  their  authority  to  act 
ultimately  upon  the  authority  of  the  Church  for  which  the 
service  was  performed. 

The  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral  plan,  of  which 
mine  is  only  a reasonable  interpretation,  in  the  light  of  an- 
cient history,  and  in  the  light  of  modem  conditions,  must 
fall  in  line  with  Republicanism  or  else  be  abandoned.  In 
this  age,  and  especially  in  this  country,  any  plan  for  Church 
union  which  has  not  Republicanism  for  its  basis  is  doomed 
to  failure. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


211 


VII. 

The  Inter-Church  Episcopate  interpretation  of  the 
Quadrilateral  Plan  for  the  national  and  international  con- 
federation of  the  Churches  of  Christendom,  is  in  exact 
alignment  with  the  ancient  plans  for  bringing  about  eccle- 
siastical unity  which  issued  in  the  Catholic  Church,  as  it 
existed  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century  to  the 
middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Of  these  plans  there  were 
three:  (I)  the  Ignatian;  (2)  the  Cyprianic,  and  (3) 
the  Constantinian. 

But  for  the  conception  and  inauguration  of  these  plans 
there  could  have  been,  from  the  organic  point  of  view,  no 
Christian  Catholicity ; and  indeed  Christianity  as  we  know 
it,  whether  in  its  doctrinal  or  institutional  form,  could  not 
have  been  developed  and  perpetuated.  These  plans  were 
alike  in  that  they  had  Episcopacy  for  their  basis,  and  in 
this  essential  feature  my  version  of  the  Quadrilateral  Plan 
is  exactly  the  same,  not  in  principle  only  but  also  in  fact. 

The  unifying  Episcopate,  of  which  Ignatius  was  the 
father,  was  Congregational.  The  unifying  Episcopate 
which  I want  the  Protestant  Churches  to  create  is  De- 
nominational. The  Level  Plan  or  rather  the  Quadrilateral 
Plan  as  interpreted  by  me,  and  the  Ignatian  Plan  are  there- 
fore the  same  in  principle. 

Nor  are  the  plans  as  different  in  form  as  might  be  sup- 
posed at  first  sight;  for,  after  all,  a Denominational  Church 
is  but  a large  congregation.  In  respect  to  their  separate- 
ness the  Denominational  Churches  of  the  twentieth  cen- 


213 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


tury  in  the  United  States,  are  on  essentially  the  same  basis 
as  were  the  Congregational  Churches  of  the  first  and  sec- 
ond centuries  in  Syria,  Asia  Minor  and  elsewhere. 

The  object  which  Ignatius  had  in  view  was  the  preser- 
vation of  unity  in  the  local  Church.  His  motto  may  be 
said  to  have  been,  “ One  Church  for  each  city.”  There 
were  in  his  time  two  or  more  congregations  in  the  larger 
cities,  and  a general  tendency  to  form  separate  associa- 
tions known  as  household  Churches.  These  in  the  case  of 
every  place  were  to  be  confederated  into  one  local  Church 
to  be  known,  for  example,  as  the  Church  of  Antioch  or 
the  Church  of  Corinth. 

The  thought  of  confederating  the  Churches  of  Antioch 
with  those  of  Corinth  did  not  cross  the  mind  of  Ignatius. 
The  idea  of  confederating  the  local  city  Churches  of  each 
Province  in  the  Roman  Empire  was  the  next  great  step  in 
the  way  towards  organic  catholicity,  and  the  credit  of  its 
conception  belongs  to  Cyprian,  not  to  Ignatius.  The  basic 
principles  upon  which  both  acted  were,  however,  the 
same,  that  of  confederation  under  the  Congregational 
Episcopate. 

Through  a city  Episcopate,  Ignatius  sought  to  bring  to- 
gether the  household  Churches  or  associations  into  city 
Catholic  Churches.  Through  an  Inter-urban  Episcopate, 
Cyprian  sought  to  create  Provincial  Catholic  Churches. 
Through  an  Inter-denominational  Episcopate  the  Level 
Plan  would  create  national  Catholic  Churches,  first  of 
the  Protestant  Churches,  then  of  the  Protestant  and  Ro- 
man Churches. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


213 


The  plans  of  Ignatius  and  Cyprian  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  their  respective  purposes  were  also  alike  in 
that  both  provided  councils  for  the  Episcopates.  It  is 
true  that  the  councillors  which  Ignatius  associated  with 
the  local  city  Bishops  were  unofficial,  or  at  least  only 
semi-official.  Presbyters;  and  that  the  councillors  which 
Cyprian  associated  with  these  Bishops  were  their  fellow 
official  Bishops.  But  the  plans  were  in  principle  identically 
the  same,  for  both  sought  to  bring  together  the  Churches  of 
Christendom  through  Bishops  and  councils,  not  through 
one  or  the  other  alone.  Therefore  in  principle  these 
plans  for  Church  union  were  exactly  the  same,  and  the 
Level  Plan  is  identical  with  them. 

Note  that  the  plan  of  Ignatius  was  concerned  with  the 
confederation  of  the  Christian  associations  of  places  into 
what  are  known  as  city  Churches,  one  Church  for  each 
city.  The  plan  of  Cyprian  was  concerned  with  a con- 
federation of  city  Churches  into  Provincial  Churches,  one 
Church  for  each  province.  Both  plans  were  based  upon 
the  Congregational  Episcopate.  The  Diocesan  Episco- 
pate, which  in  the  fourth  article  of  the  Chicago-Lam- 
beth  Quadrilateral  is  called  the  Historic  Episcopate,  is 
indeed  an  outgrowth  of  the  Provincial  Episcopate,  but  it  is 
not  related  to  it  as  closely  as  the  Provincial  Episcopate  was 
to  the  Congregational  Episcopate.  The  Provincial  Episco- 
pate was  composed  of  Congregational  Bishops  associated 
in  an  unofficial  conference  to  which  all  the  Bishops,  or  as 
we  would  say.  Rectors,  or  Pastors,  were  admitted.  The 
“ Historic  ” Episcopate  was,  and  is  in  fact,  a quite  dif- 


214 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


ferent  institution  from  this  primitive  Congregational  Epis- 
copate. 

Constantine  reorganized  Christendom  by  supplanting 
the  Congregational  Episcopate  with  a Diocesan  or  “ His- 
toric” Episcopate  and  by  adding  to  the  Provincial  Coun- 
cils an  official  General  Council  with  legislative  powers, 
such  as  the  Provincial  Council  was  slow  in  acquiring. 

It  appears  then,  that  the  phrase,  the  “Historic”  Episco- 
pate is  simply  a high  sounding  nomenclature  for  the  Dioce- 
san Episcopate.  It  is  a modern  American,  sectarian,  termi- 
nology which  is  very  little  used  by  accurate  writers,  be- 
cause it  is  so  apt  to  give  mistaken  impressions  as  to  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  institution  to  which  it  refers.  As  a matter 
of  historical  fact  the  diocesan  Episcopate  is  not  the  “ His- 
toric ” Episcopate  in  the  sense  of  being  prior  to  other  Epis- 
copates. In  that  sense  the  Congregational  Episcopate  is 
the  “ Historic  ” Episcopate.  In  the  Episcopal  Church 
the  Rectors  rather  than  Diocesans  are  entitled  to  the  dis- 
tinction of  recognition  as  representatives  of  the  “ His- 
toric,” that  is,  the  primitive  Congregational  Episcopate. 

Ignatius  created  the  City  Church,  Cyprian  the  Provin- 
cial Church,  Constantine  the  National  Church.  Later  the 
Pope  created  an  International  Church. 

Thus  as  the  need  for  them  arose,  there  have  been  at 
least  three  or  four  reorganizations  of  ecclesiastical  Chris- 
tianity ; therefore  no  reason  can  be  based  on  principle  why 
the  Churches  should  not,  if  necessity  required,  be  reor- 
ganized again  in  accordance  with  the  Level  Plan. 

A reorganization  of  Christianity  is  absolutely  necessary. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


215 


and  the  only  way  given  under  Heaven  in  which  it  can  be 
accomplished  is  the  exactly  level  way  of  Republicanism 
which  will  lead  to  a Common,  Inter-Church  Episcopate, 
the  Denominational  representatives  of  which  will  consti- 
tute National  Councils  in  which  the  Bishops  of  the  old 
Episcopates  and  those  of  the  new  will  stand  on  precisely 
the  same  footing. 

Up  to  the  time  of  Cyprian,  and  in  the  case  of  some 
Churches  for  nearly  a century  afterwards,  each  Congre- 
gational Church  or  local  Presbytery  elected  its  own 
Bishop,  and  appointed  or  consecrated  him  without  appar- 
ently any  reference  to  any  other  Congregation  or  local 
Presbytery. 

During  all  this  period,  after  the  development  of  the 
Episcopate,  when  the  Bishop  of  a congregation  died,  the 
people  elected  his  successor  and  its  own  local  representa- 
tives ordained  him.  Note  well,  that  the  congregation  did 
not  call  in  the  Bishops  of  other  congregations  for  the 
ordination. 

This  purely  congregational  and  entirely  non-Sacerdotal 
arrangement  continued  to  be  the  general  rule  until  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Cyprianic  Provincial  Councils  of  Bishops. 
In  the  course  of  time  these  councils  took  over  the  right 
to  ordain  the  Congregational  Bishops  by  a committee 
appointed  for  the  purpose ; then,  when  the  people  of  a con- 
gregation whose  Bishop  had  died  made  an  election,  the 
Bishop-elect  was  no  longer  consecrated  by  the  local  Pres- 
byters, but  by  neighboring  Congregational  Bishops. 

There  is,  from  the  historical  point  of  view,  no  reason 


216 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


why,  at  the  beginning  of  the  proposed  reorganization  for 
the  purpose  of  unification,  there  should  not  be  several  kinds 
of  Episcopates,  such  as  the  Papal  International  Episcopate 
which  the  Roman  Church  has,  the  Monarchial  Diocesan 
Episcopate  which  the  Anglo-American  Church  has,  the 
Oligarchal  Denominational  Episcopate  which  the  Metho- 
dists have  and  the  local  Congregational  Episcopate,  a 
primitive  form  which  is  still  common  to  all  Churches.  Such 
Episcopates  would  have  common  principles  for  their  basis 
and  they  would  not  differ  in  form  much  more  widely  than 
do  the  Greek,  Roman  and  Anglican  Episcopates  as  at 
present  existing. 

Barring  the  comparatively  mild  Infusion  of  Sacerdotal- 
ism which  Cyprian  Introduced  with  his  plan,  the  princi- 
ples involved  in  the  Level  Plan  are  the  same  as  those  of 
the  plans  of  Ignatius  and  Cyprian.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
any  plan  for  the  federation  of  the  Congregational 
Churches,  which  was  without  the  Sacerdotal  and  Imperial 
features  of  Cyprian’s  plan  would  have  succeeded  in  the 
third  century.  That  was  an  age  of  Imperialism.  It  is 
absolutely  certain  that  no  plan  for  the  federation  of  the 
Protestant,  Denominational  Churches  which  is  not  purely 
Republican  will  succeed  in  the  twentieth  century.  This 
is  an  age  of  Republicanism. 

If  it  be  asked,  why  the  necessity  of  attaching  so  much 
importance  to  the  precedents  established  by  Ignatius  and 
Cyprian,  I reply  that  if  their  precedents  could  not  serve 
the  purposes  of  unification  in  the  twentieth  century  that 
they  did  in  the  first  and  third  centuries,  there  would  be  no 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


217 


reason  why  we  should  not  proceed  without  reference  to 
them.  But  there  is  hardly  any  use  of  solving  problems 
which  have  already  been  solved,  especially  if  we  have 
good  reason  for  believing  that  the  solutions  were  worked 
out  along  the  basic  principles  of  everlasting  and  universal 
application. 

We  have  every  reason  for  believing  that  we  can  bring 
our  Denominational  Churches  together  into  National 
Catholic  Churches,  and  into  International  co-operative  fed- 
erations of  such  Churches,  by  the  same  way  which  was 
taken  by  Ignatius  in  federating  the  several  household 
Churches  into  one  Catholic  Church  for  each  city;  and  by 
Cyprian  in  confederating  the  city  Churches  into  Provin- 
cial Churches;  and  by  Constantine,  in  federating  the  Pro- 
vincial Churches  into  the  great  Catholic  Church  of  the 
Roman  Empire. 

Of  course  in  so  far  as  our  conditions  are  different  we 
must  establish  new  precedents.  In  any  such  necessary 
departure  we  would  have  the  justification  of  Cyprian’s  ex- 
ample; for  he  did  not  slavishly  follow  Ignatius.  Not  to 
mention  other  variations,  there  was  the  important  one 
involving  the  difference  between  Republican  and  Sacer- 
dotal principles.  Ignatius’  plan  for  confederating  the 
household  Churches  into  city  Churches  was  based  upon 
Republican  principles.  This  was  because  he  lived  so 
near  the  time  of  the  great  Republican  and  also  because 
the  cities,  paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  were  really  Republi- 
can wheels  within  an  Imperial  wheel. 

Ignatius  would  not,  if  he  could,  and  could  not  if  he 


218  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 

would,  have  established  Imperial  City  Churches.  Exactly 
the  reverse  was  true  of  Cyprian.  Not  only  was  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Roman  provinces  Imperialistic  in  his  time,  but 
the  pure  Republicanism  of  the  original  household  and 
city  Churches  had  become  considerably  changed  by  the 
large  accessions  from  the  Sacerdotal  Jewish  and  Heathen 
Churches,  which  overtaxed  the  digesting  capacity  of  or- 
ganic Gospel  Christianity.  Under  such  conditions  it  was 
impossible  that  Cyprian,  the  great  organizer,  should  pro- 
vide for  the  larger  unity,  which  the  exigencies  of  his  time 
demanded,  by  a purely  Republican  plan,  such  as  that 
which  had  been  formulated  and  carried  out  under  the 
leadership  of  Ignatius  a century  before. 

The  more  the  subject  is  studied  the  more  clearly  it 
will  appear  that  all  plans  for  the  unification  of  the 
Churches  must  follow  the  lines  of  the  government  of  the 
country  and  the  governmental  drift  of  the  age  for  which 
they  are  intended. 

The  Sacerdotal  conception  of  organic  religion  is  funda- 
mentally wrong.  It  presupposes  the  freedom  of  religion 
to  organize  and  govern  itself  without  any  reference  to  the 
State.  But  Churches  live  and  move  and  have  their  being 
in  States.  As  all  the  leading  States  are  Republican,  and 
as  Churches  and  States  must  have  essentially  the  same 
government,  it  follows  that  whatever  else  the  Church  of 
the  Future  may  be,  it  will  be  Republican  in  character. 
Therefore,  no  program  for  Church  union  which  does  not 
proceed  by  the  level  way  of  pure  Republicanism  can  ever 
be  carried  out. 


THE  level  plan. 


219 


DIAGRAM  ILLUSTRATING  THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 

The  outer  circle,  over  which  the  flag  floats,  represents  the  limits  of  the 
American  Republic,  the  natural  stage  for  every  world-wide  Republican  move- 
ment, such  as  is  contemplated  in  the  Level  Plan  for  the  unification  of  Christen- 
dom. The  inner  circle,  in  which  the  chief  emblem  of  Christianity  stands, 
represents  a proposed  incorporated  Inter-Church  council  of  Denominational 
Bishops  which  may  be  known,  in  this  country,  as  the  United  Church  of  the 
United  States.  The  spaces  into  which  the  large  circle  is  unevenly  divided 
represent  our  many  orthodox,  national.  Denominational  Churches,  great  and 
small,  ancient  and  modern,  Protestant  and  Sacerdotal.  In  the  course  of  time 
all  these  Churches  are  to  be  represented  in  the  small  circle  on  an  entirely 
equal  footing  by  a delegation  of  Bishops.  This  Inter-Denominational  council 
will  be  unofficial  in  character.  It  will,  however,  arrange  for  the  ordination  of 
all  the  candidates  for  the  Ministries  of  the  Churches  which  it  represents,  by  a 
committee  which  shall  be  equally  representative  of  the  three  types  of  Christian 
Churches,  Episcopal,  Presbyterian  and  Congregational.  This  Plan  is  purely 
Republican  and  entirely  on  the  level.  The  carrying  out  of  it  would,  within  a 
single  generation,  give  to  the  national.  Denominational  Churches  represented  in 
the  council,  the  Common  Ministry  upon  which  the  unification  of  Christendom 
and  the  evangelization  of  the  world  are  dependent.  Yet  the  adoption  of  the 
plan  would  involve  no  sacrifice  of  principle  on  the  part  of  any  Church  or  party 
or  individual. 


220 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


VIII. 

I have  thought  of  another  method  of  carrying  out  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  which  would  involve  even 
less  of  officialism  and  more  of  Republicanism  to  begin 
with  than  the  one  which  I am  recommending  in  this  book, 
as  being  in  my  judgment,  upon  the  whole,  the  best 
method  which  I am  at  this  time  capable  of  formulating. 
Speaking  especially  of  the  United  States,  in  briefest  out- 
line, the  alternative  plan  is  this; 

1.  Let  the  ministerial  associations  of  each  city  and 
town  of  the  country  form  a Church  confederation  organi- 
zation and  elect  one  of  their  number  a chairman,  superin- 
tendent or  Bishop  for  the  work  of  the  organization.  Pro- 
vision should  be  made  for  the  holding  of  this  Episcopal 
office  by  the  same  person  as  permanently  as  possible. 

This  organization  would  be  closely  analogous  to  that 
proposed  by  the  Apostolic  father,  St.  Ignatius,  for  securing 
the  unity  of  the  city  Churches.  The  Ministers  of  the 
several  Churches  represented  in  this  urban  organization 
would,  in  their  unofficial,  corporate  capacity,  correspond, 
so  far  as  the  principle  involved  is  concerned,  almost  exactly 
to  the  college  of  Elders  which  existed  in  the  places  where 
Christianity  had  been  planted  in  the  time  of  Ignatius; 
and  the  chairmen,  presidents  or  Bishops  elected  by  them 
would,  so  far  as  the  work  of  the  confederation  is  con- 
cerned, correspond  to  that  of  the  Ignatian  Bishops. 

2.  Let  these  urban  Bishops  meet,  say,  once  a year  in 
unofficial,  state  councils  for  the  purpose  of  talking  over 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


221 


the  great  business  of  Christians,  the  extension  and  develop- 
ment of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  so  far  as  it  can 
be  furthered  by  confederated  efforts.  These  state  councils 
would  elect  permanent  chairmen,  presidents  or  Bishops. 
This  organization  in  its  work  and  aims  would  find  a very 
close  analogy  in  the  provincial  councils  of  the  urban 
Bishops  organized  by  Cyprian. 

3.  Let  these  state  Bishops  with  chosen  representatives, 
say  four,  of  the  city  and  town  Bishops  meet  triennially  in 
a great  national  council;  and  let  the  first  work  of  this 
council  be  the  making  of  provision  for  securing  to  all  the 
Churches  a Common  Inter-Church  Ministry. 

To  this  end  let  the  council  form  a great  Ordaining 
Committee  consisting  of  the  Bishop  of  each  State.  In 
order  that,  to  the  satisfaction  of  both  Sacerdotalists  and 
Republicans,  the  representatives  of  this  committee  may  be 
qualified  for  their  work  of  ordaining,  let  them,  as  a 
concession  to  the  weaker  brethren,  be  ordained  by  a chosen 
committee  representing  every  Church  connected  with  the 
federation.  The  Roman,  Greek  and  Anglican  Churches 
should  be  duly  invited  to  send  a representative  to  act  upon 
this  committee. 

4.  Finally,  let  it  be  arranged  as  far  as  possible, 
through  the  efforts  of  national  and  state  conventions,  to 
have  these  reordained,  state  chairmen,  presidents  or 
Bishops,  all  should  be  free  to  call  them  what  they  please, 
take  part  in  every  future  ordination  to  the  Ministry  of  each 
Church  in  their  respective  States. 

This  plan,  like  the  one  to  which  I have  given  preference, 


222 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


would,  also  within  a generation,  secure  to  all  the 
Churches  connected  with  the  movement  looking  towards 
organic  confederation,  the  Common  Ministry  upon  which 
is  dependent  the  unification  of  Christendom  into  national 
Catholic  Churches  and  an  international  communion  of 
such  Churches. 

The  national  councils,  provided  for  in  the  alternative 
plan,  would  have  their  historical  analogy  in  the  ecumenical 
councils  of  the  Roman  Empire  organized  by  the  Emperor 
Constantine.  The  state  chairmanships,  superintendencies 
or  Bishoprics  would  correspond  to  the  diocesan  Epis- 
copate which  also  owed  its  existence  to  Providential  de- 
velopments under  the  influence  of  Constantine. 

Perhaps  this  alternative  plan  would  have  this  advantage 
over  the  one  which  I especially  recommend  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Churches,  that  it  would  stand  a better 
chance  of  securing  adoption  by  the  national  Inier-Church 
conference  on  Federation  already  in  existence. 

IX. 

I must  not  fail  to  make  it  clear  that  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union  does  not  necessarily  stand  or  fall 
with  either  of  these  methods  for  carrying  it  out.  On  the 
contrary,  the  plan  is  not  inseparably  bound  up  with  any 
method  for  its  inauguration  and  operation.  It  stands  or 
falls  with  the  principle  upon  which  it  is  based,  not  with 
any  method  for  rendering  it  efficient.  In  fact,  the  method 
may  vary  in  different  countries  and  ages,  but  the  plan  re- 
mains the  same  for  all  nations  and  generations. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


223 


I reiterate,  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  stands  or 
falls  with  the  principle  involved,  and  as  it  rests  squarely  on 
the  principle  of  equality  or  of  Republicanism,  which  is 
one  of  the  most  distinctive  or  fundamental  principles  of 
the  Gospel,  it  will  stand  unshaken  against  the  attacks  of 
the  promoters  of  any  plan  for  the  unification  of  Christen- 
dom which  is  based  upon  Sacerdotalism. 

If,  then,  at  any  time,  I have  so  far  forgotten  myself  as 
to  write  as  if  I thought  that  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union,  as  worked  out  in  this  book,  constitutes  the  only 
way  by  which  the  bringing  of  the  Churches  together  may 
be  accomplished,  I wish  to  be  understood  as  having  refer- 
ence to  the  principle  of  ecclesiastical  equality  which  is 
the  basic  assumption  of  the  plan,  rather  than  to  the 
method  of  embodying  that  principle  which  I am  advocat- 
ing. I am  fully  conscious  that,  so  far  as  methods  are 
concerned,  the  fact  of  Providential  development  must  be 
reckoned  with  in  every  such  vast  undertaking  as  the  con- 
federation of  the  Churches. 

Neither  I nor  anybody  else  can  draw  in  accurate  detail 
the  ultimate  form  of  the  ecclesiastical  ship  that  is  to  carry 
the  precious  cargo  of  Gospel  salvation  to  all  the  world. 
No  finite  hand  can  do  this,  any  more  than  the  hand  of 
Robert  Fulton  could  have  drawn  in  detail  a modern  trans- 
atlantic liner  while  sitting  in  the  cabin  of  the  little  steam- 
boat by  which  he  first  navigated  the  Hudson  River. 

But  as  Fulton  could  have  affirmed  with  confidence  that 
any  and  every  steam  craft  for  water  navigation,  whether 
great  or  small,  in  all  ages  to  come,  must  embody  the  prin- 


224 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


ciples  which  were  first  materialized  in  the  Claremont,  so  I 
humbly  claim  that  no  plan  for  bringing  the  Churches  to- 
gether will  ever  be  materialized  which  is  not  an  embodi- 
ment of  the  principle  of  entire  equality  Involved  In  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 

Therefore,  even  though  it  may  be  shown  that  my 
method  of  carrying  out  the  plan  is  utterly  impracticable, 
it  will  not  at  all  follow  as  a necessary  conclusion,  that 
the  plan  itself  is  at  bottom  wrong  and  worthless. 

Objectors  to  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  should, 
in  case  they  reject  the  principle  upon  which  It  is  based, 
show  Its  unsoundness  In  an  argument  which  I cannot 
answer.  In  all  humility  and  friendliness  I respectfully 
challenge  such  a showing ; and  while  I know  that  the  time 
for  boasting  Is  when  the  armour  Is  being  taken  off  rather 
than  when  it  is  being  put  on,  yet  I venture  to  say  that 
such  an  argument  will  never  be  forthcoming.  If  objectors 
to  this  plan  accept  the  principle,  but  reject  the  method 
for  giving  it  practical,  efficient  embodiment,  it  becomes  their 
privilege  to  discover  and  point  out  some  better  way. 

The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  will  stand  forever, 
because  it  is  based  upon  the  eternal  Gospel  principle  of 
Republican  equality.  The  method  of  carrying  out  the 
plan  should  command  respectful  attention,  until  a more 
practicable  one  has  been  formulated. 

X. 

The  Churches  are  being  kept  apart  by  their  Ministers. 
If  only  the  shepherds  would  get  together  the  sheep  who 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


225 


know  their  voices  would  follow  into  one  fold  without  the 
least  hesitancy  or  delay. 

The  great  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  Ministers  coming 
together  is  the  claim  of  some  among  them  that  they  alone 
possess  a regular  ministerial  commission.  But  the  truth  re- 
specting this  whole  vexed  question  of  ministerial  regularity 
is  that,  in  our  day,  there  is  no  Catholic,  regular  Ministry. 
We  have  nothing  but  sectarian  ministerial  regularity. 
Therefore  the  Ministry  of  one  orthodox  Church,  must  be 
regarded  as  being  as  regular  as  that  of  any  Church,  ancient 
or  modern;  and  hence,  also  every  Ministry  in  its  own 
Church  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  more  regular  than  any 
other  would  be  in  that  Church.  The  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union  would  in  the  course  of  one  generation  give 
to  Christendom  a Catholic  ministerial  regularity. 

Under  present  conditions  the  official  acts  of  any  sec- 
tarian Minister,  in  administering  Baptism  and  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  are  regular  only  in  so  far  as  they  are  confined  to 
the  membership  of  the  sect  of  which  he  is  officially  a minis- 
terial representative.  If,  to  take  an  extreme  example.  Pope 
Pius  X were  to  come  to  Little  Rock,  and  administer  the 
Holy  Communion  to  the  congregation  of  the  Winfield  Me- 
morial Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  would  not,  so  far 
as  the  membership  of  that  parochial  branch  of  the  Metho- 
dist sect  is  concerned,  be  a regular  or  valid  administration 
of  the  Sacrament,  but  so  far  as  the  Church  Universal  is 
concerned,  it  would  be  as  valid  and  as  regular  as  any 
Eucharist  that  he  has  administered  in  St.  Peter’s  Church 
at  Rome. 


226 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


This  would  be  quite  as  true  of  a celebration  of  the 
Mass  by  the  Pastor  of  the  Winfield  Memorial  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  St.  Peter’s,  Rome.  So  far  as  the 
membership  of  that  parochial  branch  of  the  Roman  sect 
is  concerned,  it  would  not  be  a regular  or  a valid  admin- 
istration of  the  Sacrament,  but  so  far  as  the  real  Catholic 
Church  is  concerned,  the  Church  which  is  constituted  of 
all  those  who  accept  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  God- 
Man  Saviour  of  the  world,  it  would  be  as  regular  and 
valid  as  any  Eucharist  that  he  has  administered  in  the 
Winfield  Memorial  Church  at  Little  Rock,  or  as  regular 
and  valid  as  any  Eucharist  that  any  human  being  has 
ever  administered  anywhere. 

In  speaking  of  validity  in  this  connection,  I have  ref- 
erence only  to  the  effect  of  the  Holy  Communion  in  se- 
curing and  preserving  outward  organic  unity  among  the 
followers  of  Christ.  So  far  as  the  spiritual  benefits  are 
concerned  the  validity  of  a Sacrament  is  not  to  any  de- 
gree dependent  upon  the  ordination  of  the  person  who 
celebrates  it,  but  upon  the  prayers  of  the  members  of 
the  congregation  of  believers.  The  prayers  of  the  cele- 
brant who  stands  at  the  Altar  or  Holy  Table,  whether 
Roman  Priest  or  Methodist  Minister,  may  contribute 
no  more  to  this  validity  than  is  contributed  by  the  prayer 
of  the  Sexton  who  humbly  kneels  at  the  door. 

It  was,  I believe,  Athanasius,  the  illustrious  Saint,  de- 
fender of  the  faith  and  Bishop,  who  in  childhood  was 
baptized  by  a little  playfellow  and  never  rebaptized, 
because  the  Doctors  of  his  day  held  the  act  to  be  valid. 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


227 


But  in  those  days,  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century, 
the  invisible  Church  of  Christ,  which  has  always  been,  is 
now,  and  ever  shall  be  one,  and  the  visible  Church  of 
Christ  which  always  has  been  and  probably  always  will 
be  to  some  extent  divided,  coincided  much  more  nearly 
than  they  do  now. 

One  of  my  critics  of  the  Sacerdotal  way  of  thinking 
says:  “ My  view  of  the  lay  Priesthood  is  that  it  is  like 
the  government  of  the  United  States.  President  Taft 
is  nothing  more  than  a representative  officer  for  the 
whole  people,  and  his  acts  are  the  people’s  acts;  but  how 
silly  would  an  individual  citizen  be  if  he  attempted  to  act 
on  the  idea  that  he  was  a lay  president.  Nor  do  I accept 
the  theory,  that  because  the  custom  of  the  Church  has  neg- 
atively acquiesced  in  admitting  the  validity  of  lay  Baptism, 
therefore  a layman  has  the  same  right  and  authority  to 
celebrate  the  Holy  Eucharist.  ” 

Ever  since  reading  the  clear  cut  statements  just  quoted, 
I have  been  wondering  whether  the  learned  and  influential 
writer  of  them,  a Bishop,  would  not  admit  that,  if  we 
were  to  have  a revolution  in  the  United  States  which 
would  place  some  “ silly  Individual  citizen  ” usurper  in  the 
Presidential  chair  and  enable  him  to  hold  it  for  say 
four  years,  his  official  acts  would  be  valid? 

Were  not  the  official  acts  of  Jefferson  Davis  while  Pres- 
ident of  the  Confederacy  valid,  and  would  not  his  official 
acts  have  been  valid  on  a wider  scale  if  the  issue  of  the 
Civil  War  had  enabled  him  to  supplant  Abraham  Lin- 
coln in  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States?  Were  not 


228 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


the  official  acts  of  Oliver  Cromwell  and  Napoleon  Bona- 
parte valid?  Or,  to  put  the  same  question  in  another 
form,  was  Cromwell  or  Bonaparte  in  the  period  of  his 
triumph,  a “silly  individual  citizen”  whose  official  acts 
were  without  validity,  null  and  void?  Now  if  the  acts 
of  this  Dictator  and  Emperor,  and  if  the  acts  of  the 
President  of  the  Confederacy  were  valid,  why  are  not  the 
acts  of  the  alleged  usurping  ecclesiastical  officers  valid? 

The  celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion  was,  in  the 
primitive  Church,  regularly  reserved  for  the  President, 
Bishop-Presbyter,  because  he  was  the  center  of  the 
Church’s  unity.  Ordinary  Presbyters  were,  at  times,  al- 
lowed to  celebrate  that  Sacrament,  not,  however,  on  ac- 
count of  any  inherent  right  to  do  so  connected  with  their 
Priesthood.  Bishop  Lightfoot  has  shown  and  even  Dr. 
Moberly  is  forced  to  admit  that  the  early  Church,  the 
Church  of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  apparently  had 
no  conception  of  a Christian  priesthood,  official  or  other- 
wise, the  chief  function  of  which  was  to  celebrate  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  who  flour- 
ished at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  even  as  late 
as  his  day  the  privilege  of  presiding  or  officiating  at  a cel- 
ebration of  the  Holy  Communion  was  sometimes  accorded 
to  a layman.  This  privilege  seems  at  first  to  have  been 
regarded  very  much  like  that  of  presiding  at  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Passover,  being  one  which  might  be  enjoyed  by 
the  head  of  the  family  or  by  otherwise  the  most  honorable 
person  present.  Hampered  as  we  are  by  our  preposses- 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


229 


sions  in  favor  of  later  and  more  seemly  customs,  it  is  diffi- 
cult for  us  to  realize  what  a comparatively  simple  cere- 
monial the  celebration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  was  in  apos- 
tolic and  sub-apostolic  times.  In  those  formative  periods, 
it  partook  much  more  of  the  character  of  a social  meal, 
which  we  might  imagine  as  following  a Methodist  prayer- 
meeting, than  it  did  the  formal  and  stately  service  with 
which  we  are  happily  so  familiar. 

Bishop  Hall  in  his  notable  pamphlet,  “ The  Apostolic 
Ministry,  ” page  40,  seems  to  admit  that  Baptism  must 
be  regarded  as  a greater  Sacrament  than  the  Eucharist, 
and  on  the  Sacerdotal  theory  it  certainly  is.  For  the  one 
gives  life  while  the  other  only  sustains  it.  Now,  if  a lay- 
man may  baptize  validly  in  extreme  sickness,  why  may  he 
not  also  as  validly  administer  the  Eucharist  in  such  cases? 

When  the  only  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Min- 
istry, and  of  the  Sacraments  that  can  endure  the  light  of 
modern  scholarship  is  followed  down  to  its  logical  con- 
clusion, it  will  appear  that  every  Christian  family  might 
constitute  a Church  of  which  the  father,  by  reason  of 
his  participation  in  the  lay  Priesthood,  and  by  reason  of 
his  being  the  head  of  a family,  would  be  the  High  Priest. 
Adam,  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  with  thou- 
sands of  others,  were,  so  to  speak,  family  Priests.  This 
Priesthood  still  might,  and  potentially  does,  exist.  We 
have  a linguistic  memorial  of  it  in  the  word  “ Elder  ” or 
“ Presbyter,  ” and  in  the  title  “ Pope  ” or  “ Papa.  ” 

A distinguished  critic,  who  is  not  nearly  as  much  of  a 
Sacerdotalist  as  his  language  would  naturally  imply,  writes 


230 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  t>LAN. 


me  that  he  would  consider  that  he  was  committing  a 
sacrilegious  act  in  receiving  the  Holy  Communion  at  the 
hands  of  one  who  had  not  received  Episcopal  ordination 
by  a Bishop  of  the  Apostolic  Succession.  With  my  view 
of  the  Church  and  Ministry,  1 am  relieved  from  the  em- 
barrassing necessity  of  feeling  and  saying  such  a really 
outrageous  thing.  For  1 can  easily  imagine  circumstances 
under  which  I could  receive  the  Holy  Communion  at  the 
hands  of  a Presbyterian  Elder  with  much  benefit,  and 
certainly  without  feeling  that  1 was  doing  wrong;  but  1 
would  not  consider,  nor  would  I have  any  one  regard  my 
act  as  identifying  myself  with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
I would  think  of  my  communion  as  with  the  Church  uni- 
versal ; or  as  it  is  spoken  of  in  the  Creed,  “ the  Communion 
of  Saints.  ” 

The  Incarnation  of  God  in  the  Person  of  the  God- 
Man,  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity and  therefore  the  Gospel  in  its  last  analysis  is  ( 1 ) 
the  revelation  of  the  communication  of  a new  infusion  of 
Divine  life  of  which  every  member  of  the  human  race  is  a 
partaker  and  (2)  the  revelation  of  the  potentialities  of 
that  life  in  the  case  of  every  soul  who  wills  to  make  the 
most  of  it. 

The  Divine  potentialities  which  are  inherent  in  the  case 
of  every  human  soul  are  compared  in  our  sacred  Scriptures 
not  to  a little  keg  of  wine  jealously  presided  over  by  a 
Sacerdotal  and  intermediatory  Priesthood,  established  by 
the  Lord  to  take  His  place,  but  to  a great  and  exhaustless 
spring  sending  out  through  the  whole  world  a stream  of 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN. 


231 


life  sustaining  water,  cool  and  sparkling,  to  which  all  may 
go  directly  and  help  themselves  without  necessary  refer- 
ence to  any  mortal  man  whomsoever.  “And  he  shewed 
me  a pure  river  of  water  of  life,  clear  as  crystal,  proceed- 
ing out  of  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb.  And  the 
Spirit  and  the  bride  say.  Come.  And  let  him  that  heareth 
say.  Come.  And  let  him  that  is  athirst.  Come.  And 
whosoever  will,  let  him  take  the  water  of  life  freely.” 

The  Lord  Jesus  stood  for  Republicanism.  His  oppo- 
nents, who  put  Him  to  death,  stood  for  Imperialism.  The 
concensus  of  conviction  is  that  He  was  right  and  that 
the  High  Priest,  Scribes,  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  were 
wrong. 

Beneath  all  variations  in  forms  of  social  organization, 
whether  domestic,  civil,  ecclesiastical  or  commercial,  there 
is  the  inherent  principle,  not,  as  the  Sacerdotalists  would 
have  us  think,  of  Imperial  coercion,  but  of  Republican  un- 
official leadership,  without  which  no  government  of  a 
constructive  character  could  survive.  The  great  keynote 
of  evolution,  “the  survival  of  the  fittest,”  operates  un- 
erringly in  all  forms  of  government.  Only  such  Republi- 
can governments,  or  leaderships,  survive  as  are  of  maxi- 
mum service  to  the  common  welfare  of  humanity. 

From  the  showing  that  has  now  been  made,  in  this  and 
other  connections,  it  appears  that  I have  a scientific  as  well 
as  a moral  right,  to  make  an  appeal  to  my  Church  for  the 
adoption  of  a purely  Republican  Ministry  as  the  basis  of 
efforts  looking  towards  the  unification  of  Christendom. 

I point  to  the  God-Man,  to  His  Gospel,  to  the  revelation 


232 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


of  the  sciences,  to  the  Divinely  constituted  order  of  every 
department  of  the  social  realm,  and  to  the  Providential 
facts  of  current  history  in  support  of  this  appeal. 

The  problem  involved  in  bringing  the  Churches  together 
is  after  all  the  ancient  problem  of  howto  unite  the  new  and 
the  old,  in  periods  of  transition  from  a lower  to  a higher 
level  of  civilization.  And  it  would  be  well  for  Sacerdo- 
talists  to  remember,  that  in  all  such  unions  the  new  has 
dictated  the  terms  to  the  old,  not  the  old  to  the  new.  In 
the  proposed  marriage  of  the  Churches,  let  those  of  us 
who  represent  the  ancient  Churches  bear  in  mind  the  fact 
that  the  modern  Churches  are  the  bride  which  must  be 
won,  not  by  blunt  dictation,  but  by  tactful  wooing. 


III. 

THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 

I. 

The  objection  has  been  made  to  the  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union  that  it  has  primary  refer- 
ence to  union  with  the  modern  rather  than  with 
the  ancient  Churches. 

But  the  same  objection  could  be  raised  against  the 
Quadrilateral  for  it  is  an  overture  to  the  Protestant 
Churches.  Evidently  it  must  have  appeared  to  the  minds 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


233 


of  the  promoters  of  the  Quadrilateral  movement  that  the 
modern  non-Episcopal  Churches,  rather  than  the  ancient 
Episcopal  Churches  could  be  looked  to  with  greater  hope- 
fulness at  the  beginning  of  any  endeavor  to  secure  ecclesias- 
tical union,  for  otherwise  the  appeal  would  have  been 
made  to  either  the  Roman  or  Greek  Church.  The  Level 
Plan  does  not  exclude  our  ancient  sister  Churches,  but 
we  begin  where  there  seems  to  be  the  greater  promise  of 
success,  hoping  that  the  end  will  be  the  organic  unity  of 
Christians  into  national  and  racial  Churches  and  into  the 
unity  of  international  Interracial  communion  of  such 
Churches.  The  only  exclusion  possible  will  be  self-exclu- 
sion. 

Under  present  conditions  the  federation  of  the  Anglican 
national  Churches  with  the  Roman  international  Church 
is  an  impossibility.  Even  if  it  were  not,  the  casting  in  of 
our  lot  with  that  Church  would  be  to  no  such  great  pur- 
pose as  identification  with  our  sister  Reformation  Churches, 
and  with  our  own  Denominational  children  and  grand- 
children. If  communion  could  be  consummated  between 
these  Churches  and  those  of  the  Anglican  Communion  the 
advantage  to  civilization  would  be  Inestimable. 

The  great  Roman  Church  may  be  likened  to  a gigantic 
Iceberg,  majestic,  compact,  unyielding.  But  it  is  drifting. 
And  its  drift  is  southward  into  milder  waters  and  warmer 
airs.  The  Roman  Church  does  not  yield  until  it  is  com- 
pelled to  do  so.  American  institutions.  Republican  gov- 
ernment and  common  schools  have  changed  and  are 
changing  her.  Modernism  will  not  down.  The  Roman 


234 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


Church  is  a different  institution  in  this  country  to-day  from 
what  she  is  in  many  parts  of  Europe.  But  she  is  chang- 
ing there  and  everywhere.  How  long  could  this  ecclesias- 
tical iceberg  survive  if  exposed  to  the  constant  and  increas- 
ing heat  radiated  by  an  united  and  aggressive  Protestant- 
ism? 

Our  union  with  the  Greek  or  Roman  Church  before 
its  republicanization  would  set  civilization  backward 
rather  than  forward. 

If  it  seemed  to  me  that  there  were  the  least  prospect 
of  the  triumph  of  the  unreformed  Greek  or  Roman 
Churches,  my  faith  in  the  future  of  Christianity  would 
collapse,  and  I would  sink  down  into  a pessimistic  scep- 
ticism which  would  not  permit  me  to  see  a ray  of  light  for 
the  future  of  civilization.  But,  thank  God,  the  signs  of 
the  times,  as  I see  and  interpret  them,  enable  me  to  believe 
that  Romanism  will  be  republicanized.  I can,  however, 
see  no  hope  of  such  a happy  event,  until  Protestantism  has 
been  unified. 

Therefore,  any  step  which  our  Anglo-American  Church 
may  take  in  an  effort  to  make  progress  towards  the  goal 
of  unity,  either  Romeward,  or  Greekward,  before  she  has 
gone  as  far  as  possible  Protestantward,  is  in  the  wrong 
direction.  It  is  not  only  that  the  coming  together  of  the 
Mother  Church  of  England  with  her  sister  Churches  of 
Europe,  and  her  daughter  and  grand-daughter  Churches 
at  home  and  throughout  the  English-speaking  world,  would 
result  in  infinitely  more  good  than  would  union  with  the 
Roman  and  Greek  Churches;  but  it  is  as  evidently  true 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


235 


that,  only  in  this  way,  can  there  be  any  hope  of  arriving 
at  unity  with  the  latter  Churches. 

Paradoxical  then,  as  the  statement  may  seem,  the  so- 
called  “ Catholic  ” Churches,  Roman,  Greek,  and  An- 
glican, will  never  come  together  until  the  Greek  and 
Roman  Churches  have  been  protestantized  or  republican- 
ized,  that  is,  modernized. 

The  English-speaking  Protestant  Churches  for  the  most 
part  came  out  of  the  Anglican  Churches.  Naturally  there- 
fore, the  first  step  towards  union  is  to  remedy  the  disrup- 
tions for  which  we  are  partly,  perhaps  largely,  or  even 
chiefly,  responsible. 

Again,  the  social  relations  of  Anglican  Protestants, 
throughout  the  world  are  with  Denominational  Protes- 
tants, rather  than  with  Romanists.  Our  people  visit 
their  Churches  and  their  people  visit  our  Churches. 
Anglicans  feel  much  nearer  to  Protestants  than  to  Roman- 
ists. If  an  Episcopalian  settles  in  a place  where  there  is 
no  Episcopal  Church,  but  where  there  are  both  a Protes- 
tant and  a Roman  Church  he  will,  except  in  very  rare 
cases,  identify  himself  with  the  Protestant  and  not  with 
the  Roman  Church. 

Investigation  has  shown  that,  in  this  country,  ten  Protes- 
tants come  into  the  Episcopal  Church  for  every  Romanist. 
Whatever  our  “ Catholics  ” may  think  about  this,  it  is 
simply  a matter  of  fact  that  Anglicans  generally  regard 
themselves  as  Protestants,  and  they  have  the  best  of  his- 
torical warrant  for  so  doing.  So  far  as  this  country  is 
concerned,  our  official  name,  “ The  Protestant  Episcopal 


236 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  ” justifies  this 
opinion.  If  the  question,  “in  which  direction  shall  we 
seek  for  union,  with  Romanism,  or  with  Protestantism?  ” 
were  submitted  to  a vote  of  our  people,  the  overwhelming 
suffrage  would  be  for  Protestantism. 

Yes,  my  Anglican  “ Catholic  ” brother,  whether  you 
like  it  or  not,  you  are  in  a Church  which  is  unquestionably 
Protestant  in  principle,  doctrine,  custom  and  sentiment. 
Moreover,  the  future  of  Christianity  is  with  Protestantism; 
and,  this  being  the  case,  it  would  be  nothing  less  than 
disastrous  to  all  the  many  and  great  interests  concerned,  if 
your  program  which  provides  for  an  alliance  with  the 
Roman  and  Greek  rather  than  with  the  Protestant 
Churches  could  be  carried  out. 

It  is  a constant  and  increasing  occasion  of  wonderment 
to  me,  that  Anglican  “ Catholics,  ” do  not  see  the  utter 
impossibility  of  the  Roman  program  for  Church  unity. 
The  United  States  and  the  twentieth  century  would 
afford  a strange  stage  and  time  for  the  production  of  such 
a scene.  In  order  to  find  a suitable  environment  for  the 
carrying  out  of  this  program  in  any  part  of  Protestant 
Christendom,  it  would  be  necessary  to  go  to  some  Euro- 
pean country  and  even  there  to  turn  back  the  hand  that 
marks  the  progress  on  the  dial  of  civilization  at  least 
four  hundred  years. 

The  Church  which  accomplished  the  conversion  of  the 
Roman  Empire  was  successful  in  its  mighty  and  momen- 
tous endeavor,  very  largely,  if  not  indeed  chiefly,  because 
it  occupied  an  antagonistic  position  in  relation  to  Sacerdo- 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


237 


talism  and  Imperialism  which  was  essentially  the  same  as 
that  which  Protestantism  has  been  occupying  since  the 
Reformation.  The  history  of  Christianity  justifies,  indeed, 
it  necessitates,  the  conclusion  that  zeal  and  success  in 
missionary  undertakings  are  inseparably  bound  up  with 
Protestantism,  and  that  the  abnormal  phase  of  Christianity 
which  has  been  erroneously  stamped  “ Catholic,  ” when 
left  without  the  Protestant  example  is  soon  sapped  of  ex- 
panding life  by  formalism  and  corruption. 

It  is  difficult  for  one  who  has  not  gone  into  the  subject 
quite  fully,  to  realize  how  intensely  Protestant  Christianity 
was  from  its  beginning  down  to  the  development  of  Sacer- 
dotalism in  doctrine,  and  of  Imperialism  in  government. 
Monasticism  was  a mighty  and  persistent  protest  of  this 
character  and  it  was  the  missionary  force  from  the  rise 
of  Sacerdotal  and  Imperial  ecclesiasticism,  until  its  cor- 
ruption and  absorption  by  Sacerdotalism. 

Then  came  the  Reformation  period  and  with  it  the  rise 
of  the  Protestant  Churches  and  the  great  missionary  move- 
ment which  they  have  set  on  foot  and  sustained;  a move- 
ment which  in  our  own  day  is  gathering  to  itself  an  en- 
thusiasm and  a power  which  give  promise  of  almost  limit- 
less results  in  both  the  extension  and  development  of  the 
Christian  civilization. 

That  Protestantism  must  take  the  leadership  in  efforts 
looking  towards  the  unification  of  Christendom  seems  as 
I read  the  signs  of  the  times,  next  to  a self-evident  proposi- 
tion. To  me  it  seems  equally  certain  that  the  first  step  in 
the  way  to  unity  is  to  be  by  the  creation  of  a com- 


238 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


mon  Protestant  Ministry;  and  that  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union  suggests  a practicable,  if  not  the  only  way, 
by  which  such  a Ministry  may  be  secured. 


II. 

A Protestant  Episcopalian  “Catholic”  friend  objects: 
“ your  plan  for  Church  union  makes  no  distinction  be- 
tween the  Catholic  and  Protestant  bodies  of  Christians  or 
between  the  Episcopal  and  non-Episcopal  Ministries.  ” 

I reply,  if  in  my  Plan  for  Church  Union  any  such  dis- 
tinction had  been  made  I could  not  consistently  have  de- 
nominated it  the  Level  Plan.  But  any  plan  for  the  unifica- 
tion of  Christendom  which  cannot  be  given  this  title,  or  its 
equivalent,  would  under  present  conditions  be  worthless. 
The  Churches  will  never  come  together  on  any  except 
level  ground.  This  fact  is  the  known  quantity  in  the  great 
and  difficult  problem  of  Church  union. 

My  “ Catholic  ” critic  would  have  been  better  pleased 
if  1 had  made  the  distinction,  which  has  grown  so  common 
among  Anglicans,  and  which  is  so  objectionable  to  other 
Protestants,  of  calling  the  ancient  organizations.  Churches, 
and  the  modern  organizations.  Sects ; and,  if  I had  spoken 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  as  “The  American  Catholic 
Church.” 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  that,  so  far  as  the  United 
States  is  concerned,  we  have  no  national  Church,  no  or- 
ganization of  Christians  that  can  properly  be  called,  in 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


239 


an  exclusive  or  inclusive  sense,  “the”  Church;  and  this 
is  true  of  all  Christian  countries.  All  our  Christian  bodies 
are  in  reality  sects.  Moreover  no  one  of  them,  to  use  a 
common  but  expressive  phrase,  stands  “ a ghost  of  a 
chance”  of  ever  becoming,  on  present  lines,  “the”  Church 
of  this  country,  “The  American  Catholic  Church.” 

The  Church  of  the  United  States  is  a thing  of  the 
future.  It  must  be  developed  by  a gradual  reorganization 
under  the  headship  of  a Common,  Inter-Denominational 
Ministry.  I am  unable  to  get  rid  of  the  opinion  that  our 
future,  national  Church  will  have  more  features  in  com- 
m_on  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  than  with 
any  other  Church,  but  I am  no  longer  so  deluded  as  to 
entertain  the  hope  that  our  Church  is  destined  to  absorb 
the  other  Churches  and  so  give  us  the  United  Church  of 
the  United  States.  And  I am  now  glad  of  that  for 
which  I was  at  one  time  sorry,  that  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church,  in  the  promulgation  of  the  Quadrilateral  over- 
ture to  her  sister  and  daughter  Protestant  Churches,  has 
officially  repudiated  such  a hope. 

Romanists  resent  references  to  their  Church  as  a sect, 
or  even  as  the  “ Roman  ” Church.  They  constantly  dis- 
tinguish their  Church  from  other  bodies  of  Christians  by 
the  distinctive  title  “Catholic.  ” They  do  all  they  can 
in  every  way,  to  pre-empt  the  use  of  this  title  to  themselves. 
Greek  and  Anglican  Christians  alike,  dispute  with  them 
the  right  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  term.  In  countries 
where  these,  respectively,  have  the  historical  precedence  in 
canonical  jurisdiction  and  racial  preponderance  in  num- 


240 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


bers,  Greeks  or  Anglicans,  claim  to  be  “ the  ” Church 
having  exclusive  right  to  allegiance. 

Greeks,  Romans  and  Anglicans  speak  of  one  another 
as  sects.  Their  separate  existence,  rivalries  and  lack  of 
intercommunion,  would  make  Christendom  sadly  sectarian, 
even  if  the  modern  Protestant  Churches  were  not  in  exist- 
ence. 

I,  myself,  believe  that,  as  a rule,  in  every  country,  one 
Christian  sect  is  possessed  of  superior  claims  to  the  al- 
legiance of  the  representatives  of  the  race  of  which  it  is 
historically  the  Mother  Church. 

I maintain  that,  under  present  sectarian  conditions,  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  that  sect  in  this  country. 
But  I have  long  since  abandoned  the  idea  that  the  Anglo- 
American  Church  is  the  Church  for  Americans  in  the 
sense  of  being  the  only  true  Church  among  all  our  national 
Churches,  having  as  her  exclusive  possession  a title  to 
recognition  as  “The  American  Catholic  Church.” 

It  is  true  that  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordination  Services 
in  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer  there  is  the  explicit  dec- 
laration, “ No  man  shall  be  taken  or  accounted  to  be  a 
lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  in  this  Church  or  suffered 
to  execute  any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called, 
tried,  examined  and  admitted  thereto,  according  to  the  form 
hereafter  following  or  hath  had  Episcopal  consecration  or 
ordination.”  But  as  the  venerable  and  learned  Bishop  of 
Albany  is  reported  to  have  said  at  the  ordination  of  the 
Bishop  Coadjutor  of  the  Diocese  of  Virginia: 

“ We  do  not  presume  to  define  the  methods,  or  the  au- 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


241 


thority  of  sending,  in  other  Churches ; or  to  refuse  to  count 
as  lawful  Ministries,  in  other  religious  bodies,  those  who 
have  not  been  Episcopally  ordained.” 

It  is  time  for  those  of  our  critic’s  way  of  thinking  to 
recognize  the  fact  that  the  invidious  distinction  between  the 
Anglican  and  other  Protestant  Ministries  upon  which  this 
criticism  of  The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  is  based, 
and  by  which  the  proposition  to  change  the  name,  ‘‘The 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,”  to  ‘‘The  American  Catholic  Church”  is  jus- 
tified, will  not  stand  in  the  light  of  historical  criticism,  or 
in  the  face  of  Gospel  and  modern  Republicanism.  The 
making  of  such  a distinction  is  at  once  unscientific,  un- 
American,  un-Anglican  and  un-Christian.  All  Churches 
and  Ministries  are  alike  sectarian  and  therefore  the 
Ministries  now  established,  in  the  several  Churches,  are, 
in  each  case,  the  regular  Ministries  for  those  Churches 
respectively. 


III. 

Another  Sacerdotal  critic  asks:  ‘‘If  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostolic  Succession,  in  the  Catholic,  tactual  sense  of  the 
phrase,  is  abandoned,  how  can  the  continuity  of  the  Church 
be  maintained?  ” 

Historical  continuity,  whether  in  Church  or  State,  does 
not  really  depend  upon  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  any 
particular  type  of  ministerial  officers,  or  for  that  matter, 
upon  any  such  officers. 


342 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


The  Patriarchs  had  no  successors;  yet  the  people  of 
Israel  have  had  a continuous  history,  through  more  than 
three  thousand  years,  from  the  time  of  Joseph  and  his 
brethren,  to  the  present  day. 

There  are  few  if  any  among  the  European  peoples, 
which  now  have  the  same  dynasty  of  kings  that  reigned 
five  hundred  years  ago;  yet  nearly  all  of  them  have  a 
national  history  covering  twice  or  thrice,  that  stretch  of 
time. 

The  Colonial  Governors,  who  once  flourished  in  that 
part  of  the  North  American  continent,  which  is  the  scene 
of  the  government  of  our  great  Republic,  have  no  suc- 
cessors. Yet  the  states,  which  originally  had  such  govern- 
ors, have  had  a continuous  history  from  the  time  of  their 
first  permanent  white  settlement  to  the  present  day. 

The  first  of  the  Anglo-American  Bishops  was  conse- 
crated in  1 786,  only  one  hundred  and  twenty-four  years 
ago.  But  the  Episcopal  Church  is  reckoned  as  having  had 
a continuous  existence,  in  the  United  States,  ever  since  the 
landing  of  the  Jamestown  Colony,  in  1 607,  and,  accord- 
ingly, at  our  last  General  Convention,  which  met  in  Rich- 
mond in  1 907,  we  celebrated  the  tri-centennial  of  the 
founding  of  this  Church.  Such  facts  prove  that  it  is  the 
continuous  life  of  the  people,  and  not  the  uninterrupted 
succession  of  their  ministerial  officers  which  determines 
the  question  of  historical  continuity. 

The  contention,  that  this  continuity  is  dependent  upon 
the  London  Episcopate,  the  representatives  of  which  were 
the  Bishops  of  the  Colonies  until  1 786  cannot  be  sustained. 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


243 


The  American  Church  was  officially  organized  and  it 
elected  its  first  Bishops  without  any  reference  to  that 
Episcopate. 

Our  Church  is  not  the  Church  of  England  in  the  United 
States,  any  more  than  our  people  are  the  people  of 
England. 

Doubtless  there  is  both  a relationship,  and  continuity, 
between  the  Churches  of  the  two  countries,  as  there  is 
between  the  peoples.  Whatever  these  may  be  they  do  not 
partake  of  the  character  of  a religious  or  civil  organism. 
The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
is  no  more  a continuation  of  the  Church  of  England,  in 
the  sense  of  historic  continuity,  than  the  government  of  the 
United  States  is  a continuation  of  the  English  govern- 
ment, in  that  sense. 

What  is  true  of  these  Churches  is  equally  true  of  their 
Bishops.  The  Anglican  and  the  Anglo-American  Epis- 
copates are  so  widely  differentiated  and  wholly  distinct  in- 
stitutions that  it  is  impossible  to  make  them  the  basis  of  his- 
toric continuity. 

The  truth  is  that  there  is  no  Church  in  existence  that 
has,  by  reason  of  its  Episcopate,  a connection  with  the 
Churches  of  which  we  read  in  the  New  Testament  and 
sub-apostolic  literatures.  Christianity  has  indeed  had  a con- 
tinuous history  from  the  New  Testament  times  until  now; 
but  its  continuity  is  due  to  the  men  and  women  who 'in  suc- 
cessive ages  have  accepted  Jesus  Christ  as  their  Divine 
Lord  and  Saviour;  not  to  Ministers  or  to  Sacraments,  not 
even  to  the  Bible  itself.  When  we  get  to  the  bottom  of  this 


244 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


question  of  continuity  which  is  a source  of  so  much  concern 
to  our  “ Catholic  ” brethren,  we  find  that  it  is  faith  in 
and  submission  to  Christ.  Wherever  this  exists  in  any 
soul  there  is  the  seed  of  the  Church,  and  the  guarantee 
of  continuity,  both  as  to  the  past  and  future. 

The  Inter-Church  Episcopate  Plan  for  Church  Union 
proceeds  upon  the  basic  assumption  of  Republican  Protes- 
tantism, which  is  that  there  is  no  essential  difference  be- 
tween Christian  churches  or  between  Christian  ministries. 

In  dealing  with  the  status  of  the  non-Episcopal 
Churches,  it  should  be  remembered  that  an  irregular  insti- 
tution may  exist  so  long,  and  flourish  so  greatly,  as  to  en- 
title it  to  recognition  as  regular.  The  older  and  greater 
among  the  Churches,  with  Presbyterian,  or  Congregational 
Ministries,  such  as,  for  instance,  the  Lutheran  Church 
of  Germany,  or  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland, 
could  base  a very  strong  claim  to  regularity,  upon  the 
ground  of  long  life  and  great  usefulness.  This  is  scarcely, 
if  at  all,  less  true  of  the  Congregational,  Methodist,  Bap- 
tist, and  others  among  the  older  and  larger  Protestant 
Churches  in  the  United  States. 

Schism  in  the  Church  is  what  revolution  is  in  the  State. 
All  intelligent  and  rational  people  concede  the  ecclesias- 
tical Reformation  or  Revolution  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
to  which  the  modern  Protestant  Churches  owe  their  exist- 
ence, to  have  been  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  far  reach- 
ing blessings  that  is  recorded  in  any  chapter  of  the  whole 
immense  volume  that  contains  the  unabridged  history  of 
mankind. 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


245 


If  the  advance  guard,  in  the  upward  way  that  leads 
to  the  higher  planes  and  mountain  peaks  of  Christian  civ- 
ilization, had  unhappily  supposed  that  the  Religion  and 
Church  of  Christ  are  inseparably  connected  with  a regular 
Ministry,  of  which  the  “ Historic  ” Episcopate  is  the  basis, 
there  could  have  been  no  sixteenth  century  Reformation 
except  on  a comparatively  small  scale.  In  that  case  the 
highly  developed  and  wonderful  twentieth  century  civili- 
zation, with  all  its  glorious  outlook,  would  have  been  an 
utter  impossibility. 


IV. 


A frequent  objection  to  the  unification  of  Christendom 
on  the  basis  of  the  Level  Plan  is  that,  at  the  beginning, 
there  would  be  overlappings  of  Episcopal  jurisdictions. 

Upon  Anglican  principles  this  objection  will  not  stand, 
for  the  Anglican  Communion  is  responsible  for  many  over- 
lappings of  Episcopal  jurisdictions  in  all  parts  of  the 
world. 

This  objection  is  based  upon  a long  established  idea  that 
the  jurisdiction  of  a Bishop  is  necessarily  geographical; 
so  that  it  is  not  permissible  for  two  or  more  Dioceses  to 
cover  the  same  ground.  As  a matter  of  fact  the  theory 
upon  which  this  idea  is  based  is  not  fully  realized  in  any 
country,  and  it  is  utterly  impracticable  in  the  United  States. 


246 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


In  this  country,  Roman  and  Anglican  Dioceses  overlap 
everywhere,  and  the  jurisdictions  of  their  Bishops,  not- 
withstanding the  pretentious,  and  exclusive  claims  of  their 
titles,  are  limited  by  souls,  not  by  geographical  boundary 
lines. 

Take  for  example  the  state  of  Arkansas.  It  contains 
two  conterranean,  completely  overlapping  Dioceses,  one  of 
the  Roman,  the  other  of  the  Anglican  Communion.  The 
Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Morris  is  not  the  Bishop  of  the  territory 
covered  by  the  Roman  Diocese  of  Little  Rock.  His 
pastoral  care  and  authority  are  confined  to  the  adherents 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Arkansas ; and  I am  not 
the  Bishop  of  the  same  territory  covered  by  the  Diocese 
of  Arkansas,  but  only  of  the  members  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.  I am  not  the  Bishop  of  Arkansas’ 
Romanists;  and  he  is  not  the  Bishop  of  Arkansas’  Epis- 
copalians; and  neither  of  us  is  the  Bishop  of  the  Pres- 
byterians, Methodists,  Baptists  or  of  any  among  all  the 
Christians  who  belong  to  the  many  other  Churches  repre- 
sented in  Arkansas. 

Bishop  Morris  probably  claims  that,  whether  the  Chris- 
tian people  of  Arkansas  know  it  or  not,  he  is  the  rightful 
Bishop  of  them  all;  and  while  I was  a “Catholic”  I 
sometimes  made  a similar  claim  on  behalf  of  myself.  But 
I have  come  to  see  that  there  is  no  practical  reality  in  such 
pretentions,  whether  made  by  him  or  by  me.  They  are 
founded  upon  the  sands  of  fictitious  idealism,  and  of  sec- 
tarian vanity. 

If,  as  “ Catholics  ” hold,  the  Apostles  were  Bishops, 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


247 


there  was  a great  deal  of  overlapping  of  Episcopal  juris' 
dictions  in  the  New  Testament  times.  Even  the  Roman 
Church  boasts  of  having  had  two  Apostles  as  its  founders. 

In  the  issue  of  The  Churchman  of  August  14th,  1909, 
there  are  two  letters  from  the  then  recently  deceased 
father  Tyrell,  who  was  one  of  the  leaders  in  the  momentous 
propaganda  of  Republicanism  which  is  going  on  in  the 
Roman  Communion,  and  which  is  technically  known  as 
the  “ Modernist  Movement.  ” One  of  these  letters  con- 
tains the  following  paragraph  which,  coming  from  such  a 
source,  should  be  interesting  reading  to  those  who  object  to 
the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  on  what  they  suppose  to 
be  “ Catholic  ” principles : 

“ The  law  of  territorial  jurisdiction  was  made  for  a 
united  Christendom.  For  a divided  Christendom  it  is 
an  absurdity.  When  principles  issue  in  midsummer  mad- 
ness, it  is  time  to  criticize  and  revise  them.  Are  Anglicans 
in  France  to  set  aside  the  Divine  respect  of  communion  in 
deference  to  an  absolute  ecclesiastical  law?  Could  it  ever 
have  been  the  intention  of  the  law-giver  to  interfere  with 
a higher  law?  The  only  hope  of  reunion  is  a firm  dis- 
regard of  that  which  is  merely  positive  and  disciplinary, 
when  it  interferes  with  what  is  Divine  and  fundamental, 
a determination  to  distinguish  gnats  from  camels. 

“ What  authority  has  an  ecumenical  law  beyond  that  of 
registering  the  universal  practice  or  convention?  And 
when  that  universality  is  broken  up  and  is  no  longer  one 
government  recognized  by  all,  cannot  each  government 
make  its  own  convention?  The  mere  fact  that  Roman 


248 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


arrogance  refuses  to  recognize  you  or  the  Greeks  or  the 
old  Catholics  as  part  of  the  ecumenicity,  proves  that  the 
ecumenicity  to  which  you  appeal  is  not  a government  rec- 
ognized by  all  Christendom.  It  is  a government  in  retro- 
spect, in  prospect;  but  it  does  not  exist.  The  Greeks  do 
not  respect  the  territories  of  the  Romans,  nor  conversely. 
It  is  mere  fetish-worship  to  let  such  legality  stand  in  the 
way  of  the  very  possibility  of  ecumenical  law.  ” 


V. 

It  is  objected  by  Anglican  “ Catholics  ” that  the  carry- 
ing out  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  would  involve 
the  reorganization  of  Christianity. 

Reorganization  is  a necessity  of  life.  If  the  law  of 
gravitation  is  the  centripetal  force  which  makes  the  or- 
ganism of  the  universe  a possibility,  the  law  of  reorgani- 
zatiori  is  the  centrifugal  force  which  makes  life  and  devel- 
opment possibilities.  But  for  the  law  of  reorganization, 
the  world  and  all  that  therein  is,  would  quickly  turn  to 
dust  and  ashes.  Death  is  a cessation  of  the  reorganizing 
process.  Animal  bodies  are  said  to  be  so  completely 
reorganized  within  the  comparatively  short  period  of  seven 
years  that  at  its  end  they  do  not  contain  one  atom  of  the 
matter  which  they  had  at  its  beginning.  There  is  a close 
analogy  between  the  animal  body  and  the  institutions  of 
man.  St.  Paul  called  attention  to  this  analogy  for  the 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


249 


purpose  of  illustrating  the  necessity  and  nature  of  the  or- 
ganic unity  which  should  exist  in  the  co-operative  re- 
lationship between  Christians. 

In  these  days  of  the  general  acceptance  of  the  evolution- 
ary hypothesis  as  the  explanation  of  all  completed  or- 
ganisms, it  need  hardly  be  said  that,  if  ever,  in  answer 
to  our  Lord’s  prayer  and  in  fulfillment  of  His  prophecy, 
we  have  a Catholic  Church,  it  will  be  the  result  of  a 
reorganizing  development.  The  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  provides  through  an  Inter-Church  Ministry  and 
National  Councils  for  the  beginning  of  a development 
which  would  reorganize  Christendom  giving  to  it  first  a 
united  Protestant  Church  and  ultimately,  through  the 
union  of  Protestantism  and  modernized  Romanism,  an 
united  Catholic  Church. 

In  the  period  intervening  between  the  crystallization  of 
unofficial  ministerialism  into  official  ministerialism,  which 
crystallization  was,  properly  speaking,  the  birth  of  the  or- 
ganic Christianity,  which  is  known  in  history  as  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  there  were  several  more  or  less  complete  re- 
organizations of  the  Church : 

1 . The  Church  was  reorganized  when  the  Republican 
congregational  Episcopate  gave  place  to  the  Imperial 
monarchial  Episcopate. 

2.  The  Church  was  reorganized  when  the  parochial 
Episcopate  gave  place  to  the  diocesan  Episcopate. 

3.  The  Church  was  reorganized  when  the  diocesan 
became  subject  to  the  metropolitan  Episcopate. 

4.  The  Church  in  western  Christendom  was  reorgan- 


250 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


ized  when  the  metropolitan  Episcopate  became  subject 
to  the  Papacy. 

5.  The  Church,  of  the  West,  was  reorganized  when 
the  Emperor  Constantine  practically  became  the  Pope  by 
assuming  the  headship  of  the  Church. 

6.  The  Western  Church  was  radically  reorganized 
when  the  Pope  practically  became  the  Emperor  of  the 
State. 

7.  The  Western  Church  was  reorganized,  at  the 
Reformation,  when  the  Pope  ceased  to  be  the  Bishop  of 
Bishops  and  King  of  Kings. 

8.  The  Roman  Church  was  reorganized  when  the 
doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility  became  a fundamental  ar- 
ticle of  her  faith  and  the  triumph  of  the  Society  of  Jesus 
was  completed;  for  then  that  Church  really  gave  place 
to  the  Society. 

A similar  showing,  to  a less  extent,  could  be  made  in 
the  case  of  the  Greek  and  Anglican  Churches.  Confining 
ourselves  to  the  Anglican  Church,  she  was  reorganized: 
(1)  by  the  planting  of  the  Roman  mission;  (2)  by  the 
merging  of  the  Heptarchy  into  the  English  nation,  and 
(3)  by  the  Reformation. 

In  view  of  this  showing,  what  objection,  that  will  stand, 
can  be  raised  against  the  proposition  to  reorganize  the 
Christianity  of  the  United  States  by  bringing  the  Churches 
together,  on  the  basis  of  a Common  Interdenominational 
Ministry  of  the  Episcopal  type?  No  new  principle  would 
be  involved  in  such  a reorganization.  The  proposed  De- 
nominational Episcopate  would  be  in  principle  the  same 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


261 


as  the  Congregational  Episcopate,  which  was  the  first  crys- 
tallization of  the  unofficial  Ministry  into  the  official  Minis- 
try ; and  the  proposed  incorporation  of  this  Episcopate  into 
an  embryonic  national  Church,  “ The  American  Catholic 
Church,”  would  involve  the  principle  which  underlies  the 
diocesan,  provincial  and  national  ecclesiastical  systems. 

Dean  Freemantle,  in  his  splendid  Bampton  Lectures, 
‘‘  The  World,  the  Subject  of  Redemption,”  confirms  the 
representation  which  I am  here  making  in  the  following 
words : 

” The  more  we  study  the  history  of  the  early  Christian 
communities,  the  more  clearly  these  two  things  stand  out; 
first,  that  their  organization  is  adapted  to  their  needs  with 
entire  freedom.  . . It  is  sufficient  to  note  that  the 

Episcopate,  like  the  other  offices,  was  due,  not  to  any 
formal  appointment  which  it  would  be  impious  to  alter,  but 
to  providential  necessity;  and  that  a similar  necessity  has 
constantly  changed  its  form.  Thus  necessity  and  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  that  is  of  sound  judgment,  have  throughout 
been  guides  in  the  organization  of  the  Church  which  is 
not  bound  to  any  one  type,  but  has  power  to  adapt  its 
Institutions  to  the  needs  of  mankind  and  its  own  position 
in  the  world.” 

The  evolutionary  hypothesis  requires  us  to  suppose  ( 1 ) 
that  as  the  Churches  of  the  present  came  out  of  the  Church 
of  the  past,  so  the  Church  of  the  future  will  come  out  of 
the  Churches  of  the  present;  and  (2)  that  the  character 
of  the  Church  of  the  future  is  to  be  conjectured  from  the 
character  of  the  religious  movements  of  the  present.  These 


252 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


reasonable  suppositions  and  many  facts  and  signs  of  the 
times  indicate  that  the  Church  of  the  future  will  preserve 
the  Episcopate  of  the  past  and  present,  while  it  will  take  in 
the  liberty  of  the  Denominational  Churches  and  the  world- 
wide aim  of  the  Roman  Cliuich. 

It  is  indeed  true  that  the  future  can  never  reproduce  the 
past;  but  on  the  other  hand  it  is  equally  true  that  the 
future  cannot  be  entirely  different  from  the  past.  The 
past  reorganized  constitutes  the  present  and  the  present 
reorganized  will  constitute  the  future. 

My  plan  for  Church  union  is  strictly  scientific  for  it 
proceeds  upon  the  evolutionary  hypothesis  that  the  Church 
of  the  future  will  exist  as  the  result  of  the  reorgani- 
zation of  the  Church  of  the  present. 

Neither  Papal  nor  Protestant  sectarianism  has  under 
present,  or  will  have  under  future  conditions,  any  useful 
function  to  perform  in  the  ecclesiastical  department  of 
the  social  organism.  The  law  of  evolution  is  doing  its 
work  of  readjusting  and  developing,  and  when  this  law 
has  finished  with  them,  it  will  be  found  that  Papalism  has 
been  republicanized  and  that  Protestantism  has  been  uni- 
versalized, and  that  the  functions  of  both  have  been  carried 
over  into  a new,  evolved,  national,  ecclesiastical  organism 
which  will  make  it  possible  for  Christianity  to  live  and 
fulfill  its  mission  under  modern  conditions. 

Anybody  who  does  not  shut  his  eyes  to  the  light  of 
the  facts  of  history  must  see  that  at  the  present  time  Ro- 
manism has  exhausted  its  tremendous  resources  in  an  effort 
to  give  to  the  world  organic  unity  of  the  Imperial  type; 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


253 


and  that  Denominationalism  has  exhausted  itself  in  an 
effort  to  give  to  the  world  spiritual  unity  of  the  Repub- 
lican type. 

I am  fully  persuaded  and  I cheerfully  admit  that  both 
Romanism  and  Denominationalism,  in  their  respective  ages 
and  fields,  have  served  Providential  purposes  of  the  great- 
est importance  to  the  furtherance  of  Christianity  and  civil- 
ization. But  when  can  Romanism  give  us  more  of  her  or- 
ganic unity  than  she  did  in  the  Dark  Ages ; and  when  can 
Denominationalism  give  us  more  of  spiritual  unity  than 
it  did  in  the  Reformation  period?  The  force  of  both 
Romanism  and  Denominationalism  has  manifestly  abated. 
They  have  performed  their  destined  purposes.  Their  work, 
which  in  both  cases  was  no  doubt,  in  the  Providence  of 
God,  of  great  magnitude  and  importance,  is  done.  The 
world  now  needs  and  in  God’s  own  good  time  will  have, 
the  unity  which  is  a combination  of  the  unities  of  Roman- 
ism and  Denominationalism.  The  combining  of  these  uni- 
ties involves  some  reorganization  of  Christendom,  such  as 
is  provided  for  in  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 

According  to  a contention  of  the  experts  among  scien- 
tific, historical  critics,  the  vision  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter, 
and  probably  even  of  Jesus  Himself,  was  widened  by 
their  missionary  experience,  so  that  they  were  more  Catho- 
lic at  the  end  of  their  respective  ministries  than  they  were 
at  the  beginning. 

If  this  contention  of  the  critics  will  stand,  and  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  it  will,  it  proves  that  the  very 
idea  of  a Christie^n  church,  which  should  be  a separate  and 


354 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN, 


distinct  institution  from  the  Jewish  church  was  an  evolu- 
tion and  that,  therefore,  the  Sacerdotal  system  of  doctrine 
concerning  the  Christian  church,  ministry  and  sacraments, 
which  accounts  for  them  and  their  importance  upon  the 
theory  of  a devolution  that  would  prevent  the  reorganiza- 
tion which  I am  proposing,  cannot  be  true. 

Now,  if  the  Christian  church  with  her  ministerial  and 
sacramental  institutions  were  so  many  developments,  they 
were  such  because  they  were  felt  to  be  necessary  by  the 
followers  of  Jesus  to  meet  certain  needs  as  they  arose. 
And  if,  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  most  of  their  oppor- 
tunities and  of  overcoming  difficulties,  the  Christians  of 
the  first  and  second  centuries  were  free  to  organize  them- 
selves into  city,  congregational  associations,  brotherhoods 
or  Churches,  and  those  of  the  third  century  were  free  to 
reorganize  those  city,  congregational  Churches  into  pro- 
vincial Churches,  and  those  of  the  fourth  century  were 
free  to  reorganize  the  provincial  Churches  into  diocesan 
Churches,  surely  there  is  no  reason  why  the  Christians  of 
the  twentieth  century  may  not  reorganize  their  denomi- 
national Churches  in  order  to  meet  the  needs  which  con- 
stitute their  problem. 

The  great  need  of  the  twentieth  century  is  Church  union. 
In  the  light  of  such  facts  of  ecclesiastical  history  which 
have  been  securely  established  by  the  science  of  historical 
criticism,  it  appears  that  Christians  always  were,  still  are, 
and  ever  will  be  free  to  meet  the  needs  of  their  respective 
generations  by  a reorganization  of  their  Churches,  and 
that,  therefore,  there  is  no  reason  whatsoever  why  we  may 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


255 


not  proceed  on  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union,  or  any 
plan  that  will  be  generally  acceptable,  to  such  a reorgani- 
zation of  our  Churches  as  we  feel  to  be  necessary  to  the 
evangelization  of  the  world. 


VI. 

“Your  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union,”  says  one  of 
my  Catholic  critics,  “ is  out  of  line  with  the  conclusions 
reached  by  the  great  Protestant  thinkers  and  writers,  of 
whom  Dr.  Newman  Smythe  is  a popular  exponent.  The 
title  of  his  representative  book,  ‘ Passing  Protestantism  and 
Coming  Catholicism,’  justifies  the  inference  that  the  recog- 
nized leaders  of  the  Protestant  hosts  are,  at  last,  beginning 
to  see  that  the  permanent  elements  of  Christianity  have 
their  embodiment  in  the  Catholic  or,  as  you  would  say, 
Sacerdotal  Churches,  rather  than  in  the  Protestant  or  Re- 
publican Churches. 

“ If  Dr.  Newman  Smythe  and  his  many  followers  are 
right,  you  are  wrong,  and  there  will  be  few  to  follow 
you.  Indeed,  as  their  comparatively  conservative  utter- 
ances have  secured  general  acceptance  among  Protestants, 
and  even  elicited  much  sympathy  from  Catholics,  candor 
and  friendship  compel  me  to  say,  that  I cannot  understand 
how  you  can  reasonably  hope  that  the  extreme  radicalism 
of  your  plan  will  have  any  serious  consideration.  Let  me, 
therefore,  strongly  advise  a careful  review  of  the  plan  with 
the  idea  of  making  such  modifications  in  it  as  are  necessary 


256 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


to  bring  it  into  alignment  with  the  plans  of  leading  Prot- 
estants who  are  working,  as  it  seems  to  me,  with  more 
success  than  you,  upon  the  problem  created  by  sectarian- 
ism. 

The  title  which  Dr.  Smythe  has  given  to  his  great  book 
is  unfortunate,  for,  by  reason  of  it,  Sacerdotalists  evidently 
get  and  try  to  convey  the  impression  that  he  endorses  their 
contention  that  Protestantism  has  been  a failure,  that  the 
future  is  with  Sacerdotalism  and  that  consequently,  no  plan 
for  Church  union  which  is  not  based  upon  Sacerdotalism 
can  be  a real  contribution  towards  the  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem of  how  to  secure  the  necessary  organic  unity  to  Chris- 
tians. But  if  the  title  is  capable  of  such  a construction 
the  book  is  not.  Nor  is  it  necessary  for  Sacerdotalists  to  be 
at  the  inconvenience  of  reading  the  book  in  order  to 
see  their  mistake.  The  headings  of  its  three  great  essays 
wnll  be  sufficient  to  make  this  perfectly  manifest. 

It  is  true  that  the  first  essay  is  entitled,  “ Passing  Prot- 
estantism,” and  that  the  word  “ passing,”  when  used  in 
reference  to  Protestantism,  is  fraught  with  comfort  to  the 
Sacerdotal  heart.  But  what  of  the  other  titles?  ‘‘Media- 
ting Modernism  ” and  ‘‘  Coming  Catholicism?”  Think 
of  it!  A Catholicism  that  is  “Coming”  on  the  wings  of 
a “ Mediating  Modernism.”  It  would  really  be  impos- 
sible for  the  average  Sacerdotalist  to  imagine  anything 
more  terrible  than  such  a Catholicism. 

Dr.  Smythe  and  I agree  in  the  conviction  that,  if  ever  we 
are  to  have  a truly  Catholic  organic  Christianity,  it  must 
be  the  result  of  a development  which  will  issue  in  a new 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


257 


ecclesiastical  institution.  According  to  our  conception, 
the  Church  of  the  future  will  be  an  up-to-date  organiza- 
tion, as  different  from  anything  of  the  kind  that  now  exists, 
or  ever  has  existed,  as  the  most  advanced  among  modern 
States  is  different  from  the  States  of  Mediaeval  and 
Ancient  times. 

The  difficulty  with  the  older  and  greater  Churches  is 
that  they  are,  as  compared  with  the  States  and  other  insti- 
tutions of  civilization,  antiquated.  All  the  great  States  of 
the  world  have  renounced  Imperialism,  the  Divine  right 
of  Kings,  and  have  been  or  are  being  reorganized  on  a 
Republican  basis.  If  the  Churches  are  to  keep  abreast 
with  the  States  they  will  have  to  give  up  their  Sacerdotal- 
ism, the  Divine  right  of  Priests,  and  reorganize  on  the 
foundation  of  Republicanism,  the  Divine  right  of  the 
People. 

The  State  has  been  saved  by  Gospel  Republicanism.  Or 
to  put  the  same  great  truth  in  other  words,  the  State,  hu- 
manly speaking,  has  been  or  is  being  saved  by  the  people. 
If  the  Church  is  to  be  saved,  and  it  is  in  as  great  need  of 
salvation  as  the  State  ever  was,  its  saviour  will  be  the 
principle  of  Republicanism.  The  soul  of  modem  civiliza- 
tion is  Republicanism  and  this  soul  has  for  its  body  the 
people,  not  kings  nor  priests. 

In  the  Churches  this  saving  principle  of  Republicanism 
is  known  as  Protestantism  or  Modernism.  The  Sacerdotal 
or  Priestly  or  Imperialistic  principle  has  dominated  in 
Churches  for  ages.  Hence,  the  Sacerdotal  principle  con- 
stitutes Catholicism.  Dr.  Smythe  sees  the  time,  in  the 


258 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


no  distant  future,  when  the  Republican  principle  will  have 
attained  the  ascendency  in  the  Church  as  it  has  in  the  State, 
and  when  Catholicity  will  be  identified  with  Republican- 
ism, not  with  Sacerdotalism. 

The  mediator,  or  influence,  or  instrumentality  by  which 
this  tremendous  transition  from  Sacerdotalism  to  Repub- 
licanism is  to  be  brought  about,  is  the  new  Protestantism 
upon  which  the  reigning  Pope  by  a famous  encyclical 
fastened  the  name,  “ Modernism.” 

This  Modernism,  this  new  Protestantism,  this  ecclesias- 
tical Republicanism  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  Roman 
Church.  Indeed,  there  is  much  more  of  it  in  the  Anglican 
and  other  great  Protestant  Churches  than  there  is  in  the 
Roman  and  Greek  ‘‘  Catholic  ” Churches. 

When  Dr.  Smythe  speaks  of  a “ Catholicism  ” that  is 
“ Coming  ” through  a “ Mediating  Modernism,”  he  means 
exactly  what  I mean  in  speaking  of  a Church  union  that 
is  to  be  brought  about  on  the  level  basis  of  Republicanism. 
According  to  Dr.  Smythe’s  very  true  conception,  Protes- 
tantism is  “Passing.”  But  quite  contrary  to  the  representa- 
tion of  my  Sacerdotal  critic,  Protestantism  is  not  “Passing” 
into  Sacerdotalism.  Protestantism  is  expanding  into  Mod- 
ernism, or  neo-Protestantism  which  gives  promise  of  being 
a much  larger  and  more  permanent  movement  than  the  old 
Protestantism,  a movement  of  which  the  goal  Is  the  new 
earth  and  the  new  heaven  of  Gospel  Republicanism. 

It  appears,  then,  that  Dr  Smythe  and  I have  taken  our 
stand  upon  the  same  great,  fundamental.  Gospel  principle. 
Republicanism.  Consequently,  our  plans  for  Church 


THE  CHIEF  OBJECTIONS. 


259 


union,  however  widely  they  may  differ  as  to  practical  de- 
tails, are  nevertheless  essentially  similar.  The  superficial 
variations  in  them  do  not  prevent  their  being  identical  at 
bottom.  It  may,  indeed,  turn  out  that  none  of  the  practical 
details  of  either  his  nor  my  plan  will  be  adopted ; and  yet, 
because  of  the  identity  of  their  underlying  principles, 
they  are  one  and  the  same  plan,  the  only  plan,  which,  in 
view  of  the  whole  drift  of  things  away  from  Sacerdotalism 
towards  Republicanism,  offers  any  ground  upon  which  to 
base  a reasonable  hope  for  securing  to  Christendom  that 
organic  unity  which,  in  some  way,  must  be  secured,  if  the 
followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  are  to  let  their  light  shine  in 
christianized  lands. 

Though  not  nearly  so  catchy,  a much  more  accurate 
title  for  the  book  would  have  been,  “ Passing  Sacerdotal- 
ism and  Coming  Republicanism.”  No  one  who  has  read 
this  masterpiece,  which  at  once  took  first  rank  in  the 
growing  literature  on  the  subject  of  Church  union,  will 
be  able  to  understand  how  any  person  of  average  intelli- 
gence could,  with  due  care,  so  much  as  examine  its  title 
page,  and  yet  suppose,  as  my  critic  does,  that  Dr.  Smythe, 
who  is  a loyal  and  highly  honored  Minister  in  one  of  the 
most  intensely  Protestant  of  all  the  Churches,  is  expecting 
the  time  to  come  when  Sacerdotal  “ Catholicism  ” will 
have  swallowed  and  absorbed  Republican  Protestantism. 
Dr.  Smythe’s  eminence  in  the  Congregational  Church, 
which  has  maintained  a very  high  standard  of  education 
for  its  Ministry  and  degree  of  enlightenment  for  its 
People,  should  protect  his  work  from  the  superficial  and 


260 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  PLAN. 


erroneous  interpretation  which  my  Sacerdotal  critic  bases 
upon  the  title,  not  the  text,  of  it.  For  if  the  book  does 
support  this  critic’s  contention,  it  must  be  regarded  as  a 
confession  on  the  part  of  its  distinguished  author,  that  the 
mission  of  the  Divine  Republican  has  failed,  and  that 
hope  in  the  future  must  be  centered  in  the  triumph  of 
principles  which  are  diametrically  opposed  to,  and  hope- 
lessly irreconcilable  with  His  Gospel.  How  far  Dr. 
Smythe  is  from  the  making  of  such  a confession,  and  from 
centering  his  hope  for  unity  in  Romanism  rather  than 
Protestantism,  may  be  judged  of  quite  accurately  from 
the  following  words  quoted  from  the  book’s  third  essay, 
entitled,  “ Coming  Catholicism : ” 

“ Church  unity  is  not  to  be  attained  by  following  some 
among  the  Anglicans,  who  would  find  a way  around  the 
Papacy  back  to  the  conditions  of  faith  which  were  left 
finished  and  fixed  by  the  first  Ecumenical  Councils,  prior 
to  the  separation  between  the  Eastern  and  Western 
Churches.  Such  Churchmen  remind  one  of  Dante’s  mis- 
taken prophets,  who  were  doomed  to  walk  with  their 
heads  reversed  on  their  bodies,  so  that,  when  they  would 
go  forward,  their  eyes  could  see  only  what  lay  behind 
them.  To  be  pro-Roman  is  not  to  be  pro-Catholic.” 


The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 


LECTURE  III. 

SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

1.  Gore  and  Moberly. 

II.  Hall’s  Apostolic  Ministry. 

III.  The  Historical  Critics. 


IV.  Grace  of  Sacraments. 


“ There  is  no  doubt  whatever  but  that  all 

THE  PROTESTANT  CHURCHES  ABOUT  US  CONFORM  TO 
THE  OTHER  THREE  REQUISITES  LAID  DOWN  IN  THE 
QUADRILATERAL;  ACCEPTANCE  OF  THE  BIBLE,  AC- 
CEPTANCE OF  THE  TWO  GREAT  CREEDS,  THE  USE  OF 
THE  TWO  SACRAMENTS,  WITH  THE  WORDS  OF  OUR 
LORD.  THE  ONE  POINT  ABOUT  WHICH  THERE  IS 
DIVISION  IS  THE  EPISCOPATE.  NOW,  IF  THE 
PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED 
STATES  OF  AMERICA,  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF 
ENGLAND  AND  THE  ANGLICAN  COMMUNION  IN 
GENERAL,  AS  REPRESENTED  BY  ITS  BISHOPS,  ARE 
HONEST  AND  SINCERE  IN  WHAT  THEY  HAVE  SAID,  IT  IS 
THEIR  BUSINESS  TO  SEEK  TO  FIND  A WAY  OF  REMOVING 
THIS  ONE  OBSTACLE,  AND  IF  THEY  DO  NOT  DO  SO  THEY 
LAY  THEMSELVES  OPEN  TO  THE  CHARGE  OF  HYPOCRISY. 
WHAT  IS  THE  OBJECTION  TO  YOUR  INTER-CHURCH 
EPISCOPATE  PLAN.^  IT  DOES  NOT  SURRENDER  ANY- 
THING WHICH  IS  INHERENT  IN  OUR  EPISCOPACY.  ON 
THE  THEORY  OF  ANGLICAN  “ CATHOLICS  ” IT  WOULD 
FURNISH  ALL  THE  PROTESTANT  CHURCHES  WITH  THE 
HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  OF  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION  AND 
THAT  ACCORDING  TO  THE  QUADRILATERAL  WHICH  OUR 
BISHOPS  HAVE  SET  FORTH,  IS  THE  ONLY  THING  THEY 
LACK.  THEN,  WHY  IN  HEAVEN’s  NAME  SHOULD  WE 
NOT  ADOPT  SOME  SUCH  PLAN  FOR  UNITY  AS  THE  ONE 
YOU  OUTLINE.”  — Extract  from  a letter  by  the  Reverend 
John  P.  Peters,  D.  D.,  Ph.  D.,  Sc.  D. 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT 
DOCTRINES. 


I. 

GORE  AND  MOBERLY. 

I. 

The  chief  cause  of  the  principal  divisions  among  the 
followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  by  which  His  King- 
dom has  been  impeded,  is  Sacerdotalism.  The 
great  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  reunion  of  Christendom  is 
Sacerdotalism.  The  cause  .of  the  modern  indifference  to- 
wards Christianity  and  the  falling  away  from  the  Churches 
is  Sacerdotalism.  What  was  the  source  from  which  Chris- 
tianity derived  this  Sacerdotalism?  Undoubtedly,  it  was 
carried  over  from  Judaism  and  Heathenism. 

By  common  consent  the  two  greatest  among  the  expo- 
nents and  defenders  of  Sacerdotalism  in  this  generation  are, 
from  the  historical  point  of  view,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Charles 
Gore,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Birmingham,  and  from  the  philo- 


264  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

sophical  point  of  view,  the  Rev.  R.  C.  Moberly,  D.  D., 
sometime  Professor  of  Pastoral  Theology  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford.  A promoter  of  any  Republican  plan 
for  the  bringing  of  the  Churches  together  has  ground  upon 
which  to  base  a rational  hope  of  success  only  to  the  extent 
that  he  levels  the  stately  superstructure  of  these  champions 
of  Sacerdotalism,  by  removing  its  buttresses  and  digging 
out  the  foundations. 

Bishop  Gore’s  book  is,  “ The  Church  and  the  Minis- 
try,” and  Professor  Moberly’s  is,  “ Ministerial  Priest- 
hood.” The  reader  will,  of  course,  not  expect  a system- 
atic review  of  these  modern  classics  of  Sacerdotalism  be- 
cause he  will  realize  that  an  attempt  to  meet  such  an  ex- 
pectation would  carry  me  far  aside  from  the  purpose  of 
this  book. 

The  question  at  issue  between  these  authors  and  myself 
must  be  settled  in  the  light  of  the  facts  of  history  which 
have  been  established  by  the  great  expert  authorities  in  the 
field  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities. 

Let  me,  in  passing,  call  attention  to  the  important 
fact,  that  in  the  whole  course  of  the  history  of  Christianity, 
there  has  not  been  anything  like  the  candor  which  now 
prevails  among  the  representatives  of  the  great  bodies  of 
Christians  who  have  attained  general  recognition  as  expert 
historical  critics.  In  our  day,  such  men,  thank  God,  do 
not  look  at  the  facts  of  Church  history  through  sectarian 
glasses,  and  with  rare  exceptions  could  not  possibly  be 
Induced  to  do  so.  In  their  work  of  investigation  they  use 
the  axe  of  science,  and  they  hew  to  the  line  of  truth,  with- 


GORE  AND  MOBERLY.  265 

out  the  slightest  reference  to  Denominational  markings. 
These  experts  constitute  a brotherhood ; and  they  are  held 
closely  together  by  the  strong  bond  of  perfect  candor. 

The  Christian  world  does  not  realize  its  indebtedness 
to  the  experts  who  are  investigating  the  Scriptures,  insti- 
tutions and  doctrines  of  Christianity.  The  time  will  come 
when  it  will  be  seen  that  they  have  inaugurated  a ref- 
ormation of  inestimable  value  to  civilization;  and  when 
they  will  be  ranked  with  the  illustrious  reformers  who  com- 
menced and  carried  on  the  sixteenth  century  Reformation. 
Indeed,  the  leading  Biblical  and  historical  critics  who 
have  worked  so  assiduously  and  courageously,  are  suc- 
cessors to  those  reformers,  as  really  and  truly  as  was  ever 
a Bishop  the  successor  of  an  Apostle ; and  I may  add  that, 
quite  contrary  to  the  representations  of  Bishop  Gore,  they 
have  shown  that  what  is  known  as  the  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion, and  what  well  might  be  called  the  Reformation  Suc- 
cession, are  essentially  the  same  in  kind,  a succession 
in  service  to  the  Church  in  particular,  and  to  the  world 
at  large. 

When  the  vexed  question  of  ministerial  succession  has 
finally  been  fully  threshed  out  and  every  grain  of  truth 
separated  and  sifted  from  all  its  straw  and  chaff,  it  will 
be  found  that  each  kernel  of  the  golden  heap  that  remains, 
is  one  of  service.  The  Encyclical  of  the  1 908  Lambeth, 
Pan-Anglican  Conference  of  Bishops  is  a notable  docu- 
ment, chiefly  on  account  of  its  first  section,  on  the  supreme 
Importance  of  service  on  the  part  of  all  Christians,  and 
especially  of  the  representatives  of  the  several  orders  of 


266  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

the  official  Christian  ministry.  The  moment  one  begins 
to  rub  his  eyes  of  the  dust  with  which  sectarianism,  es- 
pecially “ Sacerdotal  ” sectarianism,  has  filled  the  air,  he 
finds  that,  after  all  every  institution,  not  excepting  the 
Christian  ministry  really  stands  or  falls  according  as  it  is 
valuable  or  worthless  as  an  instrumentality  of  service,  in 
meeting  some  great  and  permanent  need. 

It  is  not  therefore  without  great  significance,  that  the 
officers  of  the  Christian  church  are  in  popular  usage  re- 
ferred to  as  Ministers ; and  this  fact  is  of  fundamental  im- 
portance to  all  discussions  of  the  Christian  ministry  in 
relation  to  Christian  unity.  Representatives  of  the  Greek, 
Roman  and  Anglican  Communions  may  as  well  realize 
first  as  last,  for  sooner  or  later  it  must  be  realized,  that  if 
they  would  commend  any  form  of  the  Historic  Episco- 
pate to  Protestant  Christians,  they  must  be  able  to  show, 
not  that  it  is,  by  reason  of  an  unbroken  series  of  tactual 
ordinations,  a continuation  of  the  Apostolate,  but  that  it  is, 
so  far  as  organic  Christianity  is  concerned,  the  best  embodi- 
ment of  universal,  eternal  and  indispensable  principles 
by  which  may  be  secured  the  most  complete  and  effective 
co-operation  of  the  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  obeying 
His  commands,  “ Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature,”  and,  “ Let  your  light  so 
shine  before  men  that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  and 
glorify  your  Father  which  is  in  Heaven.” 

There  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  world,  and  indeed 
the  Church  at  large,  is  from  year  to  year  taking  less  and  less 
interest  in  the  so-called  “ Catholic  ” doctrine  of  Apostolic 


GORE  AND  MOBERLY. 


267 


Succession;  and  this  because  the  doctrine  is  without  a 
practical,  utilitarian  basis.  It  is  of  no  avail  at  all  that  its 
advocates  point  to  its  Sacerdotal  aspects;  for  the  great 
living,  growing,  throbbing  world,  the  Christian  as  well 
as  the  non-Christian  part  of  it,  is  done  with  all  Priests, 
excepting  ministering,  serving,  useful  Priests;  that  is. 
Priests  who  do  things  that  are  practical;  things  which 
assist  men,  women  and  children  to  be  more  Christ-like  in 
their  personal  character  and  more  helpful  in  their  relation- 
ship to  all  with  whom,  directly  or  indirectly,  they  come  in 
contact. 


11. 

Judging  from  their  books.  Bishop  Gore  and  Professor 
Moberly  occupy  about  the  same  high  plane  as  to  their 
natural  endowments  and  scholastic  attainments;  for  the 
works  are  about  equally  meritorious  as  literary  productions. 
But  the  Bishop  and  Professor,  in  dealing  with  the  same 
subject  have  gone  about  their  work  in  quite  different  ways. 
The  Bishop  has  built  his  towering  and  shapely  superstruc- 
ture chiefly  on  a foundation  of  tradition,  while  the  Professor 
has  erected  his  equally  attractive  building  on  principally 
a philosophical  basis.  If  these  gifted  authors  had  worked 
together,  they  might  well  have  entitled  the  result  of  their 
co-labors,  “ The  Origin  and  Authority  of  the  Christian 
Priesthood;”  and  they  might  have  divided  it  into  two 
parts.  In  that  case.  Part  I,  would  have  been  by  Bishop 


268  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

Gore,  and  might  have  been  headed,  “The  Sacerdotal 
Priesthood  from  the  Traditional  Point  of  View;’’  and. 
Part  II,  by  Professor  Moberly,  “ The  Sacerdotal  Priest- 
hood from  the  Philosophical  Point  of  View.’’ 

It  is  claimed  by  Bishop  Gore  and  Professor  Moberly, 
as  I interpret  their  books,  that  one  of  the  great  objects 
of  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ  was  the  founding  of  a King- 
dom and  that,  unless  it  be  conceded  that  the  Apostles  were 
clothed  with  authority  to  continue  their  own  office,  and  to 
institute,  fill  and  perpetuate  subordinate  offices.  He  left  the 
world  on  the  day  of  Ascension  without  fulfilling  a very 
important  part  of  His  mission.  This  is  the  main  thesis  in 
all  writings  on  behalf  of  Sacerdotalism,  so  far  as  they 
concern  the  Christian  ministry,  and  the  arguments  which 
are  offered  in  support  of  it  are  both  so  numerous  and 
plausible,  that  we  need  not  greatly  wonder  at  its  wide 
reception  as  a doctrine. 

Bishop  Gore  and  Professor  Moberly  contend  that  it 
was  generally,  if  not  indeed  universally,  expected,  that  the 
Messiah,  the  Christ  whom  Jesus  claimed  to  be,  was  to 
found  a Kingdom ; that  when  at  last  in  the  fullness  of  time 
the  expected  Saviour  had  come,  the  great  event  which  had 
been  waited  for  so  long  with  such  hopefulness,  was  an- 
nounced by  His  forerunner  in  the  declaration,  “ The  King- 
dom of  Heaven  is  at  hand;’’  that  the  Messiah  Himself 
began  His  public  career  by  the  same  announcement ; that 
the  character  of  the  work  to  be  accomplished  was  such  as 
to  necessitate  a highly  organized  effort ; that  all  the  govern- 
ments with  which  the  Jews  were  familiar  were  Kingdoms, 


GORE  AND  MOBERLY. 


269 


not  Republics;  and  therefore  Christ  must  have  founded  a 
Kingdom,  whose  chief  officers  were  to  govern  on  the  Im- 
perial lines  on  which  the  Kingdoms  of  those  days  were 
governed,  and  to  perpetuate  their  offices ; that,  as  a matter 
of  fact,  in  the  creation  of  His  Church,  and  the  calling  and 
commissioning  of  His  twelve  Apostles,  He  actually  did  es- 
tablish such  a Kingdom,  appointing  its  chief  officers;  that 
the  Church  which  He  thus  created  has  been  perpetuated  to 
our  day  through  a continuation  of  the  Apostolate  in  un- 
broken continuity;  that  the  covenanted  relationship  on  ac- 
count of  which  God  becomes  a man’s  Father  and  Christ 
his  Elder  Brother  is  entered  into  by  identification  with  His 
Church,  it  being  otherwise  impossible  to  establish  this 
relationship,  which  is  of  the  essence  of  Christianity;  and 
that  the  grace  without  which  an  adopted  child  of  God  the 
Father  and  adopted  brother  of  God  the  Son  cannot  live 
and  develop  the  Christ  life,  is  received  only  from  God 
the  Holy  Ghost,  chiefly  through  the  Sacraments  of  Bap- 
tism, Confirmation  and  the  Eucharist,  as  administered  in 
the  Church  of  the  Lord’s  own  founding,  and  by  the  Min- 
istry of  His  own  institution. 

It  is  true  that  the  teachers  of  this  Sacerdotal  doctrine 
concerning  the  way  in  which  a man  may  attain  unto 
Gospel  salvation,  generally  admit  the  validity  of  Lay  Bap- 
tism; but  Professor  Moberly  does  this  very  grudgingly  and 
Bishop  Gore  none  too  freely.  These  concessions  are  forced, 
evidently  because  of  one  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
Sacerdotalism,  which  affirms  that  the  Divine  life,  without 
which  a man  cannot  become  a participant  in  Gospel  sal- 


270 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


vation,  is  communicated  only  in  Baptism.  Therefore, 
without  this  concession  which  Bishop  Gore  and  Professor 
Moberly  come  so  near  to  withholding,  the  conclusion 
would  be  unavoidable  that  none  of  the  millions  of  all  the 
adherents  of  the  Churches  which  are  without  the  Apostolic 
Succession,  are  entitled  to  regard  themselves,  or  to  be  re- 
garded, as  true  Christians,  or  entitled  to  salvation. 

This  really  monstrous  doctrine  of  Sacerdotalism  ac- 
counts for  the  shock  that  many  received  by  the  reference 
to  the  membership  of  the  Churches  which  are  without  the 
“ Historic  ” Episcopate  as  “ so-called  Christians,”  in  the 
Memorial  against  Canon  xix;  and  it  is,  no  doubt  in  large 
part,  the  explanation  of  the  opposition  to  the  proposed 
Preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  which  has  been  so  earnestly  advocated  by  the 
late  Rev.  Dr.  William  Reed  Huntington. 

But  while  this  concession  is  reluctantly  made  concern- 
ing Baptism,  when  administered  by  laymen,  the  validity 
of  the  Sacrament  of  Christ’s  Body  and  Blood,  by  which 
the  Christ  life  which  is  on  the  Sacerdotal  theory  given  in 
Baptism  may  be  preserved  and  developed,  is  not  allowed. 
Even  among  the  most  moderate  of  the  Sacerdotal  or 
Priestly  school,  it  is  held  that  the  Ministers  of  the 
Churches  which  are  without  the  Apostolic  Succession, 
commit  the  sin  of  sacrilege  as  often  as  they  administer  this 
Sacrament ; and  that  those  who  receive  it  at  their  hands  are 
partakers  with  them  of  this  great  sin.  Be  it  said  to  their 
credit,  however,  that  they  charitably  admit  that  this  other- 
wise soul-destroying  sin  is  happily  committed  in  Ignorance ; 


GORE  AND  MOBERLY. 


271 


and,  therefore,  God  in  His  mercy  does  not  permit  it  to 
have  its  full  fruitage  of  evil;  and,  moreover,  in  His  over- 
flowing mercy  He  even  permits  it  to  be  to  some  degree  a 
means  of  grace. 

As  the  theses  of  the  Bishop  and  Professor  are  practically 
the  same,  I shall  not  go  out  of  my  way  to  indicate  as 
I proceed  which  author  I have  in  mind.  This  course  will 
enable  me  to  make  my  necessarily  brief  reply  to  them 
much  more  comprehensive,  connected  and  readable  than 
it  could  be  otherwise. 


III. 

In  dealing  with  the  subject  of  the  Ministry,  no  doubt 
Bishop  Gore  and  Professor  Moberly  have  the  cause  of 
Church  union  at  heart  quite  as  much  as  I have;  but 
we  are  trying  to  reach  a common  goal  by  different  paths. 
We  see  with  equal  clearness  that  the  Christian  ministry 
presents  altogether  the  greatest  difficulty  connected  with 
the  whole  problem  of  the  unification  of  Christendom,  and 
in  our  doctrine  concerning  it  we  agree  in  at  least  two  points 
of  first  magnitude.  Bishop  Gore  and  Professor  Moberly 
acknowledge  with  me  the  fact  that  one  Christian  is  po- 
tentially as  much  of  a Priest  as  another;  and  I acknowl- 
edge with  them  the  necessity  of  an  official  Ministry. 

Here  is  Bishop  Gore’s  acknowledgment,  and  it  is  in 
exact  alignment  with  the  position  I have  taken  in  these 
lectures.  “ In  all  departments  of  life  we  are  dependent 


272  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

one  on  another.  There  is  a priesthood  of  science,  minis- 
tering the  mysteries  of  nature,  exercising  a very  real  au- 
thority and  claiming,  very  justly,  a large  measure  of  def- 
erence. There  is  a priesthood  of  art,  ministering  and  in- 
terpreting to  men  that  beauty  which  is  one  of  the  modes 
of  God’s  revelation  of  Himself  in  material  forms.  There 
is  a priesthood  of  political  influence,  and  that  not  exer- 
cised at  will,  but  organized  and  made  authoritative  in  offi- 
ces of  State.  There  is  a natural  priesthood  of  spiritual  in- 
fluence, belonging  (whether  they  will  it  or  not)  to  men 
of  spiritual  power.  It  is  to  this  natural  priesthood  that 
God  offers  the  support  of  a visible,  authoritative  com- 
mission in  sacred  things — ‘ to  feed  His  sheep.’  ” 

And  here  is  Professor  Moberly’s  acknowledgment: 
“ Now  I have  insisted  that  what  Christ  is,  the  Church, 
(that  is  the  whole  Christian  People),  which  is  Christ’s 
mystical  Body,  must  also  be.  If  Christ  is  Prophetic,  the 
Church  is  prophetic.  If  Christ  is  King  the  Church  Is 
royal.  If  Christ  is  Priest,  the  Church  is  priestly.  And 
if  Christ’s  Priesthood  is,  in  relation  to  men,  fundamental 
even  to  His  royal  and  prophetic  aspects,  then,  whatever 
tends  to  suppress  or  undervalue  the  essentially  priestly 
character  of  the  Mystical  Body  of  Christ,  obscures  a most 
fundamental  conception  of  the  truth.” 

The  admissions  of  these  champions  of  the  Sacerdotal 
hosts  logically  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  all  Christians 
are  Ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  that  whatever  dif- 
ference there  is  between  them,  in  respect  to  their  Ministry 
in  its  relationship  to  the  Church,  is  of  an  official  not  of  an 


GORE  AND  MOBERLY, 


273 


essential  character.  It  is  a difference  which  is  exactly 
analogous  to  that  which  exists  between  the  President  of 
the  United  States  and  an  ordinary  citizen. 

Before  President  Taft’s  election  and  inauguration  to  the 
Presidency,  he  and  Mr.  Bryan  were,  at  least  so  far  as 
that  office  is  concerned,  on  essentially  the  same  footing. 
Until  Mr.  Taft’s  election,  and  indeed  until  his  inaugura- 
tion, whatever  of  difference  there  was  between  them  was 
purely  of  a Providential  character.  But  now  he  has  the 
imperishable  honor  of  being  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  Mr.  Bryan  remains  a private  citizen. 

What  happened  at  Mr.  Taft’s  inauguration?  Did  it 
make  him  something  essentially  different  from  what  he 
was  before,  while  Mr.  Bryan  still  remained  what  he  had 
been,  so  that  they  no  longer  stand  on  the  same  footing  as 
formerly?  Not  at  all.  No  such  change  has  taken  place. 
What  then  has  happened?  Only  this,  that  Mr.  Taft 
while  yet  remaining  a citizen  and  as  such  on  exactly  the 
same  level  as  Mr.  Bryan,  or  any  other  man  born  in  the 
United  States,  has  been  made  a public  official. 


IV. 

The  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  the  Christian  ministry  has 
for  its  basis  a tradition  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Epis- 
copate which  was  never  thought  of  until  after  the  rise  of 
monarchial  Bishops ; there  being  no  trace  of  it  in  the  New 
Testament  and  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 


274  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

An  historical  investigation  covering  the  whole  ground  of 
this  assertion  would  here  be  both  tedious  and  confusing, 
and,  therefore,  I have  concluded  to  confine  myself  to 
one  notable  Church,  that  of  Corinth.  I have  less  hesi- 
tancy in  imposing  this  limitation  upon  myself,  because 
it  will  be  conceded  on  all  hands  that  the  developments 
which  took  place  in  that  Church  are  typical  of  what,  with 
slight  variations  due  to  special  circumstances,  occurred  in 
all  the  other  Churches. 

The  choice  of  this  Church  has  been  made  because  it 
is  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament  times,  the  history 
of  which  is  by  common  consent  most  fully  covered  by 
documentary  records  of  unexceptionable  character.  The 
convenient,  poorly  lighted  tunnel,  of  which  we  read 
so  much  in  the  controversial  writings  of  Sacerdotalists,  in 
their  desperate  efforts  to  carry  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic 
Succession  back  of  A.  D.  150,  does  not  exist  here;  for 
the  historical  light  of  trustworthy  documents  shines  with 
sufficient  brightness  clear  through  it. 

At  the  beginning  of  our  era,  Corinth  was  to  the  Roman 
Empire,  in  respect  to  her  commerce,  very  much  what 
New  York  is  to  the  United  States,  the  great  distributing 
point.  The  Church  was  planted  there  by  St.  Paul  him- 
self, in  the  prime  of  his  life  and  influence,  about  A.  D. 
54,  as  the  result  of  what  he  considered  to  be  a direct  rev- 
elation concerning  his  duty,  and  after  he  had  the  benefit 
of  nearly  twenty  years  of  experience  as  a missionary. 

No  Sacerdotalist  dates  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
church  later  than  the  day  of  Pentecost,  which  occurred 


GORE  AND  MOBERLY. 


275 


about  the  year  33,  and  so,  as  a generation  Is  reckoned  at 
30  years,  the  Church  was  planted  at  Corinth  when  Chris- 
tianity was  nearing  the  end  of  the  first  generation  of  its 
existence.  Now  as  the  Corinthian  Church  came  into 
being  under  such  exceptional  and  favorable  conditions, 
by  the  command  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  the  greatest  man  that  Christianity  has 
ever  produced,  who  gave  at  least  eighteen  months  of 
his  precious  time  to  the  work  on  the  ground,  and  after- 
wards took  an  unusual  interest  in  it,  sending  to  it  on  various 
missions  such  men  as  Titus,  Silas,  Timothy  and  Luke,  and 
writing  more  epistles  to  its  converts  than  to  any  other,  it 
may  reasonably  be  supposed  that,  if  in  any  Church  exactly 
the  right  thing  was  done,  in  respect  to  the  placing  of  the 
proper  Ministry  for  the  carrying  on  of  the  work  so  auspi- 
ciously begun,  it  would  have  been  in  the  Church  of 
Corinth. 

If,  then,  the  assumption  of  Bishop  Gore  and  Professor 
Moberly,  that  our  Lord  founded  the  Episcopate,  be  true, 
we  shall  not  look  in  vain  for  the  historical  proof  of  it  in 
the  Corinthian  Church.  But  how  extremely  unfortunate 
for  the  cause  of  Sacerdotalism  it  is  that,  if  tradition  be 
left  to  one  side,  as  it  must  be,  for  the  ground  is  quite  suffi- 
ciently covered  by  authentic  documentary  history,  the 
Church  of  Corinth  affords  no  support  to  this  assumption. 

The  following  unimpeachable  documents  cover  the 
history  of  the  Corinthian  Church  down  to  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  A.  D.  150;  (1 ) St.  Paul’s 
own  writings,  the  First  and  Second  Corinthians,  (2)  the 


276  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  (3)  the  Letter  of  Clement  Ro- 
manus  to  the  Corinthian  Church,  and  (4)  the  testimony 
of  the  historian  Hegesippus  as  reported  by  the  father  of 
ecclesiastical  history,  Eusebius,  These  authenticated 
documents,  the  dates  of  which,  by  the  common  consent  of 
the  experts,  are  fixed  with  sufficient  accuracy,  reveal  the 
inner  life  of  the  Church  of  Corinth  during  a full  century 
after  its  planting.  So  far  as  this  Church  is  concerned, 
these  documents  constitute  what  ecclesiastical  antiquarians 
technically  call  “ the  sources  ” of  our  knowledge  con- 
cerning her  origin,  and  of  her  development  to  the  end  of 
the  period  of  which  we  are  speaking. 

Now,  it  IS  an  indisputable  fact,  which  no  writer  on 
behalf  of  Sacerdotalism  has  ever  been  able  to  success- 
fully controvert,  that  these  documents,  all  of  which  are 
within  quite  easy  reach  of  English  readers,  render  it  ab- 
solutely impossible  to  believe  that  the  Episcopal  form  of 
government  at  Corinth  was  a devolution  from  the 
Apostolate  rather  than  an  evolution  from  the  People.  The 
evidence  which  is  full  and  complete  shows  that,  in  the 
course  of  the  nearly  one  hundred  years,  covered  by  the 
authenticated  documentary  sources  of  information,  well 
marked  developments  took  place  which  made  the  form  of 
the  Christian  ministry  at  Corinth  a very  different  institution 
in  the  year  A.  D.  150  from  what  it  was  in  the  year  54; 
for  it  started  out  a loosely  organized,  unofficial  Presbyt- 
erate  and  wound  up  a quite  highly  organized,  official, 
monarchial  Episcopate.  But  in  principle  it  was  still  es- 
sentially the  same  Ministry,  for,  through  all  the  changes 


GORE  AND  MOBERLY. 


277 


of  the  period  It  remained  in  every  sense  of  the  phrase, 
a strictly  Republican  institution,  owing  its  existence,  func- 
tions and  authority,  in  short,  all  that  it  was  at  any  time 
recognized  to  be,  wholly  and  entirely  to  the  people. 

It  is  not  even  necessary  to  qualify  this  statement  by 
the  fact  that  throughout  this  period  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
supposed  to  be  responsible  for  the  personnel  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  because  of  the  special  endowments  which 
He  vouchsafed  to  its  representatives,  and  on  account  of 
which  they  were  singled  out  for  the  particular  services 
which  as  Prophets,  Apostles,  Evangelists  and  Teachers 
they  rendered;  for  the  Church  reserved  the  right  to  deter- 
mine whether  or  not  those  who  claimed  a place  in  this 
charismatic  Ministry  were  entitled  to  it.  Anyone  who 
was  supposed  to  be  especially  anointed  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  for  the  performance  of  one  or  more  of  the  ministerial 
functions  was  given  his  or  her  rightful  place  in  the  Minis- 
try; but  the  recognition  by  the  people  was  as  necessary 
as  the  anointing  by  the  Holy  Ghost ; and,  what  is  fatal  to 
the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession,  neither 
the  anointing  nor  the  recognition  had  any  reference  to  the 
Apostles,  being  as  independent  of  their  branch  of  the 
Ministry  as  it  was  of  that  of  the  Prophets  or  of  the 
Teachers  or  of  the  Evangelists. 

The  sources  of  information  which  are  in  all  respects 
as  satisfactory  as  could  reasonably  be  wished  for,  show 
most  conclusively  that,  so  far  at  least  as  the  important 
Corinthian  Church  is  concerned.  Bishop  Gore’s  hypothesis 
that  the  Presbyterate  started  out  as  a college  of  official 


378  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

Bishops,  owing  its  existence  to  the  Apostolate,  instead  of 
to  a college  of  unofficial  Elders  which  in  turn  owed  its 
existence  to  the  people,  had  not  been  entertained  by  any- 
body. If  such  a conception  existed  from  the  beginning, 
it  would  almost  inevitably  have  found  some  expression  in 
all  extended  passages  of  New  Testament  and  sub-apos- 
tolic documents  having  a direct  bearing  upon  the  subject 
of  the  Christian  ministry;  and  it  is  next  to  inconceivable 
that  there  should  be  no  trace  of  it  in  the  epistle  of  St. 
Clement,  one  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  He  was  the  chief 
representative  of  the  Christian  Brotherhood  of  the  Church 
in  Rome,  and  through  him  this  Church  proffered  its  good 
offices  in  the  capacity  of  a peacemaker  between  opposing 
factions  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  which  had  come  to 
hate  each  other  so  bitterly  that  they  threw  Christian  char- 
ity and  consistency  to  the  winds,  and  were  guilty  of 
quarrelsome  conduct  so  scandalous  that  it  gave  the  enemies 
of  Christianity  an  opportunity  for  just  criticism,  and  filled 
its  adherents  at  other  places  with  regret  and  sorrow. 

The  population  of  Corinth,  as  we  have  seen,  was  cos- 
mopolitan in  character,  like  that  of  New  York  City.  The 
difficulty  of  the  Corinthian  Church  may,  therefore,  have 
had  its  tap  root  in  the  race  hatred  which  existed  between 
the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  It  is  quite  likely  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  ministerial  Eldership  were  chiefly  Jews, 
and  that  the  depositions  in  which  the  trouble  culminated, 
and  which  was  the  particular  occasion  of  St.  Clement’s 
letter,  were  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Gentiles  were  now  in 
the  majority,  and  having  determined  upon  a change  of 


GORE  AND  MOBERLY. 


279 


ministerial  administration,  proceeded  to  accomplish  their 
purpose  by  turning  out  the  old  Elders  and  electing  a 
new  set. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  Clement  wrote  his  epistle  to 
Corinth  at  this  crisis  of  the  trouble,  not  on  his  own  author- 
ity, but  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  Church.  Scholars 
seem  to  be  generally  agreed  that  the  date  of  the  epistle 
was  the  year  96,  a full  half  century  after  the  planting  of 
the  Corinthian  Church,  and  more  than  a generation  after 
St.  Paul,  and  probably  St.  Peter,  had  visited  Rome. 

If  at  this  time,  about  A.  D.  96,  in  the  second  genera- 
tion of  Christianity,  an  Episcopate  deriving  its  authority  to 
rule  the  Church  from  the  Apostolate,  was  in  existence,  an 
effort  of  the  great  Church  of  Rome  to  settle  a difficulty  in 
the  equally  great  Church  of  Corinth  by  securing  the  res- 
toration of  Ministers  who  had  been  deposed  by  the  domi- 
nant party,  would  furnish  just  the  occasion  for  reference  to 
it.  For  upon  the  supposition  that  an  Episcopate  existed  in 
these  Churches,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  would  have  written 
in  his  own  name  to  the  Bishop  of  Corinth;  or  if  that  bish- 
opric was  vacant,  he  would  have  recommended  the  filling 
of  it  by  someone  upon  whom  the  opposing  parties  could 
agree,  under  a concordat  which  provided  that  all  should 
abide  by  the  new  Bishop’s  decisions. 

Human  nature  being  what  it  is,  and  the  fundamental 
instincts  by  which  social  organizations  are  governed  being 
what  they  are,  Clement’s  failure  to  take  such  a course 
proves  conclusively  that  in  two  widely  separated  Churches, 
as  late  as  A.  D.  96,  sixty  years  after  the  Ascension,  the 


280  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

Episcopate  upon  which  the  Sacerdotalists  build  their 
whole  doctrinal  superstructure  concerning  the  Ministry. 
Church  and  Sacraments,  was  not  in  existence. 

It  was  probably  about  fifty  years  later,  that  is  A.  D. 
145,  when  Hegesippus,  the  historian,  of  whose  writings 
scanty  but  valuable  fragments  were  preserved  by  Eusebius, 
visited  Corinth  on  his  way  to  Rome.  At  that  time  the 
Church  was  peacefully  and  prosperously  governed  with  a 
monarchial  Bishop  of  the  congregational.  Republican  type 
at  its  head. 

We  have  now  shown  that  as  late  as  A.  D.  96,  the  Epis- 
copate could  not  have  been  in  existence  at  Corinth  or 
Rome.  Bishop  Lightfoot  in  his  essay  on  “ The  Chris- 
tian Ministry  ” and  his  work  on  “ The  Apostolic  Fathers,” 
has  made  a similar  showing  in  respect  to  the  whole  Church 
to  the  end  of  the  sub-apostolic  age.  Professor  Hort  in 
his  book,  “ The  Christian  Ecclesia,”  has  specialized  in 
the  case  of  the  Syrian,  Antiochian  Church,  as  I have  here 
done  in  the  case  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  and  with  the 
same  result.  Professor  McGiffert  has  shown  that  the 
special  features  of  the  Mother  Church  of  Jerusalem  were 
not  perpetuated,  and  that  the  chief  doctrines  and  institu- 
tions of  Christianity,  so  far  as  they  have  an  apostolic 
origin,  must  be  traced  to  the  Apostle  St.  Paul,  rather  than 
to  the  original  twelve  Apostles. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession  is  without  any  basis  in  historic  fact, 
and  that  consequently,  notwithstanding  all  that  Bishop 
Gore  and  Professor  Moberly  have  done  to  buttress  it,  the 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


281 


whole  superstructure  of  Sacerdotalism  is  tottering  to  its 
inevitable  fall. 

The  books  of  Bishop  Gore  and  Professor  Moberly 
were  in  mind  while  writing  the  section  of  Lecture  I on 
“The  Apostolic  Succession,”  and  they  will  be  kept  there 
throughout  the  following  sections  of  this  Lecture  entitled, 
respectively,  “ Hall’s  Apostolic  Ministry,”  “ The  His- 
torical Critics,”  and  “ Grace  of  Sacraments.” 


II. 

HALL’S  APOSTOLIC  MINISTRY. 

The  learned  Bishop  of  Vermont,  Dr.  Hall, 
recently  published  a notable  essay  entitled,  “The 
Apostolic  Ministry.”  Bishop  Hall  is,  by  common 
consent,  the  most  capable  and  influential  champion  of 
Sacerdotalism  in  the  American  branch  of  the  Anglican 
Communion.  His  position  here  corresponds  to  that  of 
Bishop  Gore,  or  Professor  Moberly  in  the  Mother 
Church.  He  wrote  this  essay  with  special  reference  to 
the  burning  questions  which  are  now  agitating  the 
Anglican  Communion,  in  their  relation  to  the  problem 
of  Church  union. 

As  Bishop  Hall  and  I occupy  widely  separated  points 
of  view  and  as  he  criticizes  my  position,  this  reply  to  the 
great  Anglican  Sacerdotalists  would  be  incomplete  with- 
out some  reference  to  his  effort  in  “ The  Apostolic  Minis- 
try ” to  give  support  to  the  immense  but  rickety  building 


282  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

which  Bishop  Gore,  Professor  Moberly  and  other  Sacer- 
dotalists  have  built  on  the  sand  of  exploded  traditions. 

Many  of  Bishop  Hall’s  contentions,  which,  if  allowed 
to  stand,  would  make  most  strongly  against  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union,  have  received  sufficient  consideration  in 
the  answers  to  the  objections  which  have  been  raised  to 
the  plan,  and  in  the  reviews  of  the  chief  Sacerdotal  doc- 
trines. I believe  that  I shall  be  able  to  claim  that  the  es- 
say of  this  American  champion  of  Sacerdotalism  has  been 
fully  covered  if  attention  is  given  here  to : ( 1 ) the  quo- 
tations from  the  Apostolic  Fathers  in  support  of  the  Sac- 
erdotal doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession;  (2)  the  quota- 
tion from  Bishop  Gore  concerning  the  interpretation  of 
the  earlier  by  the  later  ecclesiastical  history,  and  (3)  the 
summary  of  conclusions  which  are  alleged  by  Bishop  Hall 
to  have  been  established  by  the  array  of  facts  and  argu- 
ments presented  in  his  essay. 

I.  The  Quotations  from  the  Apostolic  Fathers:  One 
of  Bishop  Hall’s  quotations  from  the  Fathers  is  taken 
from  Tertullian  and,  as  it  is  the  strongest  to  be  found 
in  all  Patristic  literature  down  to  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  and  as  my  space  is  limited,  I shall  confine  my- 
self to  its  consideration.  This  is  a quotation  which,  taken 
alone,  is  well  calculated  to  deceive  the  very  elect  among 
those  who  hold  to  the  Republican,  Protestant,  Modern 
theory  of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry. 
It  is  from  Tertullian’s  animadversions  against  those  among 
the  professed  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  who  had  de- 
parted from  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints,  as  it 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


283 


was  commonly  held  towards  the  close  of  the  first  half  of 
the  third  century,  and  reads  as  follows : 

“ Let  them  show  the  origins  of  their  Churches,  let  them 
unroll  the  line  of  their  Bishops,  running  down  in  such  a 
way  by  succession  from  the  beginning  that  their  first 
Bishop  shall  have  had  for  his  ordainer  and  predecessor  one 
of  the  Apostles,  or  of  the  apostolic  men,  one  who  continued 
to  the  end  in  their  fellowship.  This  is  the  way  in  which 
the  apostolic  Churches  hand  down  their  registers;  as  the 
Church  of  the  Smyrnaeans  relates  that  Polycarp  was 
placed  therein  by  John,  as  the  Church  of  Rome  relates 
that  Clement  was  ordained  by  Peter.  So  in  like  manner 
the  rest  of  the  Churches  exhibit  the  names  of  men  ap- 
pointed to  the  Episcopate  by  Apostles  whom  they  possess 
as  transmitters  of  the  Apostolic  seed.”  The  Prescription 
of  Heretics,  xxxii. 

I would  be  giving  the  Bishop  of  Vermont  an  advantage 
to  which  he  is  not  entitled,  if  I omitted  to  direct  attention 
to  the  fact  that,  in  introducing  his  quotations,  he  speaks 
of  establishing  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  concerning  the  ori- 
gin and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry  by  “ the  testi- 
mony of  the  Apostolic  Fathers;”  but,  altogether  the  most 
Important  of  his  quotations  is  from  the  writings  of  Tertul- 
han,  who  was  not  one  of  those  fathers.  No  doubt,  we 
here  have  a slip  of  the  pen  and  I would  not  feel  justified 
m even  referring  to  it,  except  perhaps  in  a private  com- 
munication, but  for  the  fact  that  I have  frequently  main- 
tained in  this  book  that  no  Sacerdotal  doctrine  can  be 
fastened  upon  Christianity  by  New  Testament  texts,  or  by 


384 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


references  to  passages  in  the  extant  writings  of  the  Apos- 
tolic F athers.  I do  not  consider  that  T ertullian  in  this  or  any 
other  passage  really  gives  the  least  support  to  Sacerdotal- 
ism. Still,  he  occasionally  does  speak  of  Christian  minis- 
ters in  such  a way  that,  if  the  context  and  general  tenor  of 
his  writings  are  disregarded,  as  they  have  been  by  the 
Bishop  of  Vermont,  it  might  be  contended  with  some  show 
of  reason  that  the  position  of  such  Ministers  was  held  by 
him  to  be  somewhat  analogous  to  that  of  Jewish  Priests. 

The  effort  of  Bishop  Hall  to  support  the  Sacerdotal 
doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession  by  this  passage  from  the 
writings  of  Tertullian  is  futile  because,  as  the  context  and 
the  book  from  which  it  is  taken  show,  Tertullian  was  not 
here  speaking  of  any  such  doctrine,  and  in  fact  there  is 
no  evidence  anywhere  that  he  held  to  it,  or  even  knew 
of  it 

The  first  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession,  the  only  one 
that  down  to  Tertullian’s  time  had  been  advocated  by 
anybody,  was  not  at  all  concerned  with  “ the  transmission 
of  the  ministerial  commission,”  but  with  the  preservation 
and  perpetuation  of  the  apostolic  faith. 

As  quoted  apart  from  its  immediate  and  general  con- 
text, the  passage  under  consideration  might  leave  the  im- 
pression that  Tertullian  represents  that  the  extension  of  the 
Apostolate,  through  an  uninterrupted  series  of  ordinations 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  secures  the  preservation  of 
the  seed  of  the  Church  to  posterity.  Tertullian  was  very 
far  from  intending  to  make  any  such  representation. 

According  to  Tertullian,  the  seed  of  the  Church  was 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


285 


not  an  apostolic  ministry,  but  an  apostolic  faith.  Apos- 
tolic Succession  consisted,  then  not  in  a continuous  series 
of  ordinations  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  through  which 
ministerial  authority  and  power  were  perpetuated,  but  in 
an  uninterrupted  line  of  witnesses  by  which  the  saving 
truths  of  the  Gospel  were  handed  down  from  generation 
to  generation.  The  Bishop’s  quotation  is  taken  from 
Chapter  xxxii  of  Tertullian’s  “ Prescription  against  Here- 
tics.” In  Chapter  xx  of  that  work  we  have  a clear  state- 
ment by  its  author  as  to  what  he  meant  by  the  phrase, 
“ the  apostolic  seed.” 

“ Having  on  the  authority  of  prophecy,  which  occurs 
in  a psalm  of  David,  chosen  Matthias  by  lot  as  the 
twelfth,  into  the  place  of  Judas,  they  obtained  the  prom- 
ised power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  gift  of  miracle 
and  of  utterance;  and  after  first  bearing  witness  to  the 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ  throughout  Judea  and  founding 
Churches,  they  next  went  forth  into  the  world  and 
preached  the  same  doctrine  of  the  same  faith  to  the 
nations.  They  then  in  like  manner  founded  Churches  in 
every  city,  from  which  all  the  other  Churches,  one  after 
another,  derived  the  tradition  of  the  faith,  and  the  seeds 
of  doctrine,  and  are  every  day  deriving  them,  that  they 
may  become  Churches.  Indeed,  it  is  on  this  account  only 
that  they  will  be  able  to  deem  themselves  apostolic  as 
being  the  offspring  of  apostolic  Churches.”  Press.  Hesret, 

C.  XX. 

Here  Tertullian  asserts,  in  the  clearest  terms  possible, 
that  the  Doctrine  of  Christ  and  not  the  Ministry  of  the 


286 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


Apostles  constitutes  the  Seed  of  the  Church.  This  seed 
is  the  germ  from  which  the  Church  of  Christ  springs.  The 
doctrine  is  the  seed,  the  Church  is  the  outgrowth  of  the 
doctrine.  The  true  Church  of  Christ  is  to  be  identified 
then,  by  its  doctrine;  not  by  its  Ministry. 

The  interpretation  which  the  Bishop  of  Vermont  puts 
upon  his  quotation  from  Tertullian  is,  therefore,  altogether 
erroneous.  Tertullian  did  not  have  in  mind  an  Episcopate 
which  was  created  for  the  purpose  of  continuing,  through 
a tactual  succession  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination, 
a Ministry  which  Christ  had  instituted,  and  to  which  he 
had  given  extraordinary  powers,  in  order  that  the  preach- 
ing and  sacramental  ministrations  of  its  representatives 
might  have  supernatural  effects.  The  Episcopate  of 
which  he  speaks  was  created  for  the  purpose  of  passing 
on,  through  a verbal  succession,  maintained  by  competent 
witnesses,  whose  lives  overlapped  each  other,  the  saving 
doctrines  of  the  all  sufficient  Gospel  which  Christ  had 
preached. 

Tertullian’s  contention  in  the  passage  quoted  by  Bishop 
Hall,  as  elsewhere,  is  that  they  only  teach  the  true  doc- 
trine who  have  received  that  doctrine  by  succession  from 
the  Apostles.  Polycarp  received  the  doctrine  from  St. 
John.  Irenaeus  received  it  from  Poly  carp.  Only  those 
who  have  received  the  Christian  teaching  through  such  a 
succession  from  the  beginning  can  witness  authoritatively 
as  to  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ.  “ Transmitters  of  the 
apostolate  seed,”  means,  as  the  context  clearly  shows,  the 
transmitters  of  the  apostolic  doctrine. 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


287 


It  is  surpassingly  strange  that  one  of  Bishop  Hall’s  repu- 
tation for  learning  and  candor  should  lay  himself  so  liable 
to  just  criticism  as  to  represent  that  Tertullian  gives  sup- 
port to  the  Sacerdotal  conception  of  the  Christian  ministry. 
For  the  truth  is,  that  so  far  was  he  from  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  the  transmission  of  the  ministerial  commission 
through  Bishops  of  the  Apostolic  Succession  that  he  made 
no  essential  distinction  between  the  Clergy  and  Laity. 

“ Vain,”  he  says,  “ shall  we  be  if  we  think  that  what 
is  not  lawful  for  Priests  is  lawful  for  Laymen.  Are  not 
even  we  Laymen  Priests?  It  is  written  ‘a  Kingdom  also 
and  Priests  to  God  and  the  Father  hath  He  made  us.’  It 
is  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  the  honor  which  has  ac- 
quired sanctity  through  the  joint  session  of  the  (ministerial) 
Order,  which  has  established  the  difference  between  the 
Order  and  the  Laity.  Accordingly,  when  there  is  no  joint 
session  of  the  ecclesiastical  Order  you  offer  (celebrate  the 
Lord’s  Supper),  and  baptize,  and  are  Priests  alone  for 
yourself.  But  where  three  are,  a Church  is,  albeit  they 
be  Laymen.  For  each  individual  lives  by  his  own  faith, 
nor  is  there  exception  of  persons  with  God.  Therefore, 
if  you  have  the  right  of  a Priest  in  your  own  person,  in 
cases  of  necessity,  it  behooves  you  to  have  likewise  the 
discipline  of  a Priest.”  Exhortation  to  Chastit}),  Chap- 
ter vii. 

“ But,”  says  Bishop  Hall,  “Tertullian  had  become  a 
Montanist  when  he  wrote  this  treatise.” 

If  this  passage,  which  virtually  declares  that  there  i§ 


288 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


no  essential  difference  between  the  Clergy  and  Laity  stood 
alone,  and  it  were  conceded  that  Tertullian  wrote  it  after 
becoming  a Montanist,  it  would  still  have  decisive  weight; 
for  he  was  to  the  end  the  same  scholar,  the  same  de- 
fender of  the  faith,  the  same  champion  of  purity  of  life. 

One  of  the  great  services  rendered  by  Tertullian  to  the 
Church  was  his  defense  of  the  faith  as  contained  in  the 
most  voluminous  of  his  extant  writings,  the  five  books  en- 
titled, “ Against  Marcion.”  Marcion  was  the  Gnostic 
arch-heretic  whom,  Irenaeus  tells  us.  Polycarp  called  to 
his  face  “ the  first  born  of  satan.”  It  is  the  commonly 
accepted  opinion  among  scholars  that  this  inestimably  valu- 
able work  was  written  after  its  author  had  embraced 
Montanism. 

One  of  the  causes  of  Tertullian’s  becoming  a Montanist 
was  the  tendency  of  the  Church  towards  a Sacerdotal 
Ministry.  Montanism  was  a protest  against  this,  and 
against  the  usurpation  by  the  official  Ministry  of  the  pre- 
rogatives of  Prophets  and  Teachers  which  had  been  exer- 
cised by  the  Laity. 

Drs.  Hall,  Gore  and  Moberly  are  very  far  from  the 
truth  when  they  characterize  Montanism  as  a heresy  and 
Tertullian  as  a heretic.  Tlie  relationship  of  Montanism 
to  the  rest  of  the  Church  was  essentially  the  same  as 
that  of  the  Anglican  Churches  to  the  Roman  Church. 
Montanism  was  no  more  of  a heresy  than  Anglicanism, 
and  Tertullian  was  no  more  of  a heretic  than  was 
Archbishop  Cranmer. 

The  eminent  scholar,  Professor  Moeller,  says,  “ Mon- 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


289 


tanism  was  not  a new  form  of  Christianity,  nor  were  the 
Montanists  a new  sect.  On  the  contrary,  Montanism  was 
really  a reaction  of  the  old,  the  primitive  Church  against 
the  obvious  tendency  of  the  Church  of  the  day  to  strike 
a bargain  with  the  world,  and  arrange  herself  comfortably 

• •.  99 

in  it. 

The  passage,  on  the  rights  of  the  laity,  is  not  Tertul- 
lian’s  only  writing  to  the  same  effect.  The  teaching  occurs 
also  in  his  tract,  “ Concerning  Baptism,”  which  scholars 
generally  assign  to  the  pre-Montanist  period  of  his  life. 
“ On  giving  it  (Baptism)  the  Chief  Priest  (the  Bishop) 
has  the  right;  in  the  next  place,  the  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons, yet  not  without  the  Bishop’s  authority.  Beside  these 
even  Laymen  have  the  right ; for  what  is  equally  received 
can  be  equally  given.  Baptism  which  is  equally  God’s 
property  can  be  administered  by  all.”  Chapter  1 7. 

Historical  criticism  renders  it  certain  that  in  the  New 
Testament  and  sub-apostolic  periods  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity, the  daily  evening  meal  of  a Christian  family 
was  regarded  as  the  Lord’s  Supper  and  that  every  head 
of  such  family,  or,  if  absent,  his  representative,  was  held 
to  be  entirely  competent  to  preside  at  the  celebration  of 
that  meal  and  ordinance. 

The  purpose  which  the  quotation  from  Tertullian  is 
made  to  serve  by  Bishop  Hall  presents  a striking  illustra- 
tion of  the  ease  with  which  current  beliefs  and  teachings 
may  be  read  back  into  ancient  writings  in  which  they 
have  no  place^  and  of  the  utter  worthlessness  of  the 
whole  system  of  pseudoscoplc  traditions  which  is  the  basis 


290  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

of  Sacerdotalism.  Tertullian’s  object  was  to  show  that 
the  true  Christian  doctrine  had  been  transmitted  by  a con- 
tinuous line  of  trustworthy  witnesses.  He  was  a man  of 
sense  and  knew  that  a knowledge  and  understanding  of 
apostolic  doctrine  could  not  be  transmitted  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  quite  as  well  as  we  know  that  a knowledge 
and  understanding  of  astonomical  theorems  can  not  be 
so  transmitted.  The  apostolic  doctrine  was,  according  to 
Tertullian’s  theory,  transmitted  by  what  a great  historical 
authority  aptly  calls  “ a tactual  descent  of  tradition 
from  the  Apostles  by  the  living  voice.” 

Irenaeus,  from  whom  Bishop  Hall  quotes  his  next  most 
important  passage,  is  in  agreement  with  Tertullian  in  this 
interpretation  of  Apostolic  Succession.  In  his  Treatise 
against  the  Heretics,  he  speaks  of  the  “ tradition  which  is 
preserved  by  means  of  the  succession  of  the  Presbyters;” 
and  of  the  ” truth  which  has  come  down  by  means  of  the 
succession  of  Bishops.  By  this  succession,  the  ecclesias- 
tical tradition  from  the  Apostles,  and  the  preaching  of  the 
truth,  have  come  down  to  us.  And  this  is  most  abundant 
proof  that  there  is  one  and  the  same  vivifying  faith,  which 
has  been  preserved  in  the  Church  from  the  Apostles  until 
now,  and  handed  down  in  truth.”  Boolf  III,  Chapters 
2 and  3. 

II.  The  Quotation  from  Bishop  Gore:  Bishop  Hall, 
pages  20-22,  says:  ” It  is  not  of  course  supposed  that  as 
definite  and  clear  a scheme  of  the  Ministry  is  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament  as  is  manifest  later.  Names  cer- 
tainly were  not  fixed;  offices  were  gradually  constituted. 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


291 


Light  is  thrown  back  on  what  is  obscure  in  the  New 
Testament  by  what  we  find  as  the  established  order  in 
the  next  age.”  This  statement  is  supported  by  a quotation 
from  Bishop  Gore:  “The  earliest  history  must  be  inter- 
preted in  the  light  of  what  emerged  from  it  as  the  regular 
and  universally  accepted  order.” 

The  position  which  Bishops  Hall  and  Gore  take  here 
was  almost  universally  occupied  by  the  theologians  of  the 
Dark  and  Mediaeval  ages;  but  it  was  abandoned  by  the 
Reformers,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a single  great 
name  among  the  modern  expert  authorities  in  the  field  of 
Christian  antiquities  who  occupies  it. 

It  is  often  claimed  that  the  science  of  historical  criticism 
is  in  its  infancy  and  that  therefore  the  conclusions  of  its 
devotees  cannot  be  accepted  with  safety. 

The  same  objection  might  be  urged  with  almost  equal 
plausibility  against  any  other  science.  This  is  largely  true 
even  of  the  ancient  sciences  of  astronomy,  chemistry  and 
medicine  and  it  is  eminently  so  of  geology,  biology  and 
psychology. 

One  hundred  years  ago  psychology  was  a department 
of  abstract  metaphysics.  What  little  there  was  of  biological 
investigation  was  conducted  by  theorists  under  the  high 
sounding  name  of  natural  history.  The  progress  that  has 
been  made  in  this  so-called  science  of  natural  history  may 
be  judged  of  by  the  fact  that,  as  late  as  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  the  greatest  among  English  natural- 
ists maintained  that  fossils  afforded  no  evidence  of  the 
antiquity  of  the  earth,  because  they  are  simply  **  appear- 


292 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


ances  ” which  were  created  six  thousand  years  ago  with 
the  rest  of  the  earth  and  universe. 

If  this  naturalist  had  been  a Sacerdotal  theologian,  he 
probably  would  have  attributed  these  fossils,  “ sports  of 
nature,  created,  dead  and  petrified,”  to  the  devil  who 
wanted  to  use  them,  at  the  psychological  moment,  to  de- 
ceive men,  by  leading  natural  historians  to  reject  the 
theory  that  the  universe  was  created  in  six  days  of  twenty- 
four  hours  each  by  the  direct  commandments  of  God. 
There  are  many  Sacerdotalists  who  seem  to  feel  quite  jus- 
tified in  rejecting  facts  of  history  as  deceptions  of  the  devil, 
if  they  make  against  the  idea  that  when  the  happy  angels 
drew  the  Lord  of  Glory  up  into  Heaven  on  one  end  of 
their  golden  rope,  they  let  down  on  its  other  end  a Bishop, 
gorgeously  attired  and  fully  equipped  with  mitre,  cope, 
staff  and  key,  to  establish  a Church  with  hlerarchial  and 
sacramental  systems,  in  accordance  with  complete  specifi- 
cations which  were  handed  to  him  midway  as  the  ends 
of  the  rope  with  their  precious  burdens  passed  each  other. 

Whenever  Sacerdotalists  are  hard  pushed  by  those  who 
are  acquainted  with  the  results  of  modern  historical  criti- 
cism, they  claim  that  the  critics  have  gone  wrong  because, 
in  their  efforts  to  arrive  at  the  truth  respecting  primitive 
Christianity,  they  refuse  to  recognize  the  generally  ac- 
cepted traditions  which  have  come  down  through  the  ages, 
as  being  of  equal  value  with  the  statements  of  reliable 
historical  records.  They  argue,  with  much  show  of  rea- 
son, that  doctrines  which  have  been  believed  at  all  times 
in  all  places  by  all  orthodox  Christians  are  just  as  trust- 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


293 


worthy  as  they  would  be  if  a chapter  and  verse  could  be 
cited  in  favor  of  them  from  the  New  Testament,  or  from 
the  writings  of  an  early  Church  father.  This  is  what 
Bishop  Hall  means  when  he  speaks  of  “ light  thrown  back 
on  what  is  obscure.”  The  same  thing  is  meant  by  Bishop 
Gore  when  he  says,  “ The  earliest  history  must  be  inter- 
preted in  the  light  of  what  emerged  from  it  as  the  regular 
and  universally  accepted  order.” 

But  in  this  assertion  Bishops  Hall  and  Gore,  the  great- 
est among  American  and  English  champions  of  Sacerdo- 
talism, beg  the  whole  question.  For  the  contention  of  the 
expert  critics  is,  that  the  result  of  their  historical  investi- 
gation proves  that  there  is  no  universally  accepted  order 
or  tradition  which  can  be  cited  in  support  of  a single  Sacer- 
dotal doctrine  or  custom. 

The  doctrines  of  which  it  can  be  said  that  they  have 
been  believed  at  all  times,  in  all  places,  by  all  orthodox 
Christians  are  very  few,  and  none  of  them  has  a Sacer- 
dotal character.  Indeed,  almost  the  only  doctrine  on 
behalf  of  which  this  claim  of  support  by  an  universal 
tradition  can  be  made,  is  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  The 
most  primitive  confession  of  faith  was  very  short,  even 
when  compared  with  the  so-called  Catholic  Creeds,  which 
were  formulated  in  the  fourth  and  later  centuries,  to  say 
nothing  about  modern  confessions  of  faith.  In  New  Tes- 
tament times,  the  Christian  Creed  really  had  but  this 
one  article,  or  its  equivalent,  ‘‘  Jesus  is  the  Messiah.” 

That  great  theological  thinker,  Alexander  Campbell, 
rendered  a much  needed  service  to  Christianity,  by  calling 


294  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

attention  to  and  ably  emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  faith 
of  the  first  generation  of  Christians,  of  whom  we  have  an 
account  in  the  Gospel  narratives,  was,  compared  with 
that  of  succeeding  generations,  exceedingly  simple,  both 
as  to  the  number  and  character  of  its  articles.  As  he 
correctly  represents,  the  confession,  “ Jesus  is  the  Mes- 
siah,” or  “ Jesus  is  the  Christ,”  constituted  about  all  there 
was  of  the  creed  which  differentiated  Christianity  from 
the  Jewish  religion. 

Historical  criticism  has  shown  that  the  Messianic  con- 
ception, quite  contrary  to  what  Bishops  Hall  and  Gore 
would  have  us  believe,  was  not  at  all  Priestly  or  Sacer- 
dotal in  character.  It  was,  in  fact,  a civil  rather  than 
a religious  conception,  more  in  line  with  the  idea  of  royalty 
than  priesthood.  The  first  followers  of  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siah thought  of  Him  as  an  Over  King  not  as  a High 
Priest.  The  High  Priesthood  of  Jesus  was  a much  later 
conception  than  His  Over  Kingship. 

Jesus  was  a Layman.  His  first  Apostles  were  laymen. 
Neither  He  nor  they  were  seriously,  if  at  all,  thought  of  as 
Priests,  until  after  the  New  Testament  times.  This  is  a 
fact  not  a theory,  which  in  itself  proves  that  no  Sacerdotal 
doctrine  can  be  fastened  upon  Christianity  as  something 
which  has  been  believed  always,  everywhere  and  by  all. 

All  the  claims  of  Bishops  Hall  and  Gore  and  of  Pro- 
fessor Moberly  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  the  Sacer- 
dotal conception  of  the  Christian  ministry,  which  accounts 
for  it  upon  the  devolutionary  hypothesis  of  an  Apostolic 
Succession,  is  a theory,  quite  as  much  so  as  the  Republican 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


295 


theory,  which  accounts  for  it  upon  the  evolutionary  hy- 
pothesis. Both  conceptions  rest  upon  theory  or  philosophy. 

In  view  of  all  that  Sacerdotalists  have  to  say  in  dis- 
paragement of  philosophy,  it  is  well  that  they  should 
be  reminded  that  the  whole  doctrinal  system  of  Sacer- 
dotalism may  be  compared  to  a river  which  was  formed 
by  the  confluence  of  the  Jewish  and  Heathen  systems  of 
philosophy;  and  that,  but  for  this  coming  together,  the 
mighty  Roman  Church,  with  all  that  it  did  for  the  world, 
by  carrying  Christianity  through  the  Dark  and  Mediaeval 
ages,  would  have  been  an  impossibility.  Professor 
Wernle,  the  eminent  historical  critic,  states  the  truth  re- 
specting the  indispensable  relationship  to  Christianity  of 
philosophy  where  he  says : 

“ The  Apostle  Paul  would  have  nothing  to  do  with 
philosophy.  He  was  still  an  apologist  of  the  Layman’s 
religion.  Human  wisdom  and  divine  revelation  were  en- 
tirely opposed  to  each  other  in  his  view.  Long  before 
his  time,  however,  an  alliance  had  been  concluded  between 
these  two  opposites  in  Alexandria  and  even  in  Palestine. 
As  Clement  of  Alexandria  so  beautifully  expresses  it, 
the  divine  reason  did  not  merely  educate  for  Christianity 
the  Jews  through  the  law  but  the  Greeks  through  philoso- 
phy. Philosophical  and  religious  ethics,  had  met  and  had 
discovered,  to  their  astonishment  that  they  were  near  rela- 
tions. Had  it  not  been  for  this  alliance,  Christianity  had 
not  conquered  the  world.” 

The  difference  between  the  Sacerdotal,  devolutionary 
and  the  Republican,  evolutionary,  doctrinal,  philosophical 


296 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


theories  is  as  to  the  foundation  upon  which  rests  the  al- 
leged facts,  by  which  they  are  respectively  supported. 

The  system  of  alleged  facts  upon  which  Sacerdotalists 
seek  to  support  their  philosophical,  devolutionary  theory 
concerning  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  min- 
istry rests  upon  tradition.  The  system  of  alleged  facts 
upon  which  Republicans  seek  to  support  their  philosophical 
evolutionary  theory  of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Christian  ministry  rests  upon  history.  The  real  difference 
between  Sacerdotalism  and  Republicanism,  so  far  as  the 
Christian  ministry  is  involved,  is  then  the  difference  be- 
tween tradition  and  history. 

In  the  unscientific  Mediaeval  times,  history  and  tradition 
were  mixed  as  wheat  and  chaff;  and  the  chaff  was  gener- 
ally supposed  to  be  wheat.  In  this  scientific  age,  historical 
criticism  is  winnowing  the  chaff  of  tradition  from  the  wheat 
of  history  with  the  result  of  discovering  that  the  whole 
Sacerdotal  system  of  doctrines  is  chaff. 

Historical  criticism  has  shown  that  so  far  as  the  Chris- 
tian church,  ministry  and  sacraments  are  concerned. 
Sacerdotalism  is  the  embodiment  of  a twofold  fiction. 
There  is  first  the  fictitious  theory  by  which  these  institu- 
tions are  given  a supernatural,  devolutionary  origin  and 
character.  Then  there  is  the  fictitious  tradition  by  which 
the  theory  is  justified. 

Sacerdotalists  pursue  an  inverted  order  in  their  doc- 
trinal inventings  and  buildings.  First  they  invent  and 
build  the  superstructure,  a veritable  castle  in  the  air.  Then 
they  invent  and  lay  the  foundation  of  tradition  for  their 


HALL  S APOSTOLIC  MINISTRY. 


297 


castle.  Finally,  they  furnish  it  from  cellar  to  garret  with 
invented  furniture  of  the  most  unique  and  marvelous  de- 
signs. 

Republican  Protestantism  on  the  evidence  afforded  by 
the  scientifically  established  facts  of  the  history  of  primi- 
tive Christianity,  proves  that  the  monarchial  Episcopate 
came  into  existence  as  a Providential,  but  nevertheless 
perfectly  natural  development.  Sacerdotal  “Catholi- 
cism ” on  the  purely  fictitious  assumption  of  a superstitious 
tradition,  which  took  its  rise  from  the  seeds  of  corruption, 
brought  into  Christianity  by  imperfectly  converted  Jews 
and  He  then,  makes  it  out  that  the  monarchial  Episcopate 
is,  by  an  ordinance  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  a continuation  of 
the  Apostolate,  to  the  representatives  of  which,  and  to 
their  successors  by  tactual  ordination.  He  is  alleged  to 
have  entrusted  the  founding  and  ruling  of  a visible,  organic 
Church  or  Kingdom,  which  was  established  in  fulfillment 
of  an  important,  if  not  the  chief  part  of  His  mission; 
and  that,  therefore,  this  institution,  the  monarchial  Episco- 
pate, is  of  a supernatural  and  devolutionary  origin. 

There  is  not  a passage  in  the  literary  remains  of  primi- 
tive Christianity  upon  which  this  tremendous  assumption 
of  Sacerdotalism  is  rested  more  heavily  than  the  one 
quoted  by  Bishop  Hall  from  Tertullian’s  writings  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  does  not  relate  to  the  succession  of  a 
devoluted  apostolic  office,  but  to  the  succession  of  a devo- 
luted  apostolic  faith. 

The  testimony  of  Tertullian  is  to  the  effect  that  the 
faith  was  established  at  Smyrna  by  a succession  of  wit- 


298  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

nesses  to  St.  John’s  teaching,  of  which  succession  Poly- 
carp was  the  first  connecting  link  with  the  Apostle,  and 
that  this  faith  was  established  at  Rome  by  a succession 
of  witnesses  to  St.  Peter’s  teaching  of  which  succession, 
Clement  was  the  first  connecting  link  with  the  Apostle. 

Neither  here,  nor  anywhere  else  does  Tertullian’s  testi- 
mony give  the  least  support  to  the  essential  basic  assump- 
tion of  Sacerdotalism,  that  is,  the  existence  in  the  persons 
of  monarchial  Bishops  of  tactual  successors  to  the  Apostles 
which  successors  are  the  official  representatives  of  Christ, 
and,  as  such,  mediatorial  Priests,  in  whom  alone  exists  the 
seed  from  which  can  spring  a true  Christian  church,  or  a 
Christian  ministry  whose  official  acts  are  valid. 

Respecting  the  tradition  of  the  establishment  of  such  a 
succession  of  monarchial  Bishops  at  Rome  by  St.  Peter 
through  Clement,  I assert  most  emphatically  and  unquali- 
fiedly that  historical  criticism  has  shown  it  to  be  utterly 
baseless.  The  monarchial  Episcopate  was  not  founded 
at  Rome  until  long  after  the  death  of  St.  Peter;  and, 
when  it  did  come  into  being,  its  first  representatives 
were  ordained  by  local  Elders  who  were  really  Laymen, 
not  by  men  who  were  Apostles  by  reason  of  the  laying 
on  of  hands  in  an  unbroken  series  of  ordinations. 

St.  Peter  died  before  A.  D.  70.  One  hundred  years 
later,  the  Episcopate  had  not  yet  reached  the  monarchial 
and  Sacerdotal  stages  in  its  development.  What  there 
was  of  this  institution  even  then,  was,  as  to  its  personnel, 
an  undifferentiated  part  of  the  Presbytery.  Down  to 
very  nearly  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  the  Epis- 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


299 


copate  was  not  a distinct  office,  but  only  a Presbyterial 
function. 

An  elder  was  requested,  or  elected,  or  appointed  to  per- 
form some  important  service  for  the  Christian  brotherhood, 
and,  if  he  accepted  the  commission,  he  was,  while  engaged 
in  the  performance  of  the  duties  expected  of  him,  a Bishop. 
No  doubt.  Deacons  and  Laymen  sometimes  assumed  the 
responsibilities  connected  with  such  commissions  and  so 
became  Bishops. 

Having  discharged  their  respective  Episcopal  functions, 
such  as  the  superintendency  of  an  important  work  of 
charity,  or  of  a building  operation,  or  of  a diplomatic 
correspondence,  or  of  a missionary  expedition,  or  of  the 
establishment  of  a burying  ground,  or  of  the  collection  of 
a set  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  these  Bishops  sank  back  to 
the  level  which  they  had  formerly  occupied.  Probably, 
some  among  these  functionary  Bishops,  whose  services 
were  exceptionally  important,  long  continued  and  often 
repeated,  permanently  retained  the  title  as  an  honorable 
distinction ; so  that  some  of  the  larger  Churches  may  have 
had  proportionately  as  many  Bishops  as  Kentucky  has 
colonels. 

As  the  Christian  communities  or  Churches  grew  and 
their  eleemosynary  and  missionary  undertakings  increased, 
both  in  number  and  magnitude,  there  was  of  course  a 
corresponding  tendency  in  the  Episcopate  to  permanency. 
TTie  progress  of  this  natural  tendency  carried  with  it  an 
ever  increasing  accumulation  of  honors,  and  so  it  inevitably 
culminated  in  placing  the  monarchial  Episcopate  above 


300  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

the  oligarchal  Presbyterate,  as  a separate  and  distinct 
institution.  But  this  stage  or  development,  though  prog- 
ress towards  it  was  greatly  accelerated  by  the  increase 
of  proprietary  interests,  the  rise  of  heresy  and  the  bursting 
of  storm  after  storm  of  decimating  and  otherwise  terrible 
persecution,  was  not  reached  until  two  hundred  years  after 
the  Roman  executioner  had  sent  St.  Peter  to  his  rich 
reward.  Even  then,  and  for  a long  time  afterwards, 
the  Episcopate  was  Congregational  and  Republican  in 
character. 

The  historical  critics  are  showing,  by  an  ever  accumu- 
lating array  of  scientifically  established  facts,  that  still 
another  long  century  of  evolutionary  development  was 
required  for  the  production  of  the  sacerdotal,  caste, 
monarchial  Bishops  who  collectively  constituted  the  insti- 
tution which  we  are  calling  the  “ Historic  Episcopate.” 

Bishops  Gore  and  Hall  and  Professor  Moberly  would 
have  us  believe,  on  the  evidence  of  traditions,  that  this 
“Historic”  Episcopate  was  instituted  by  Jesus  in  the 
persons  of  the  twelve  Apostles,  and  perpetuated  through 
them,  in  accordance  with  His  directions,  by  the  laying  on 
of  hands  in  ordination  by  an  unbroken  series  of  ever  mul- 
tiplying successors  from  generation  to  generation.  The 
science  of  historical  criticism  has  shown  these  traditions  to 
be  so  many  fabrications  of  undigested  Jewish  and  Heathen 
converts  to  Christianity.  But  the  point  upon  which  I am 
here  insisting  is,  that  St.  Peter  took  no  part  in  the  establish- 
ment of  the  monarchial  or  of  any  Episcopate. 

It  is  barely  possible,  though  highly  improbable,  that  the 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


301 


institution  of  the  monarchial  Episcopate,  in  its  most  primi- 
tive form,  may  have  come  into  being,  in  some  of  the  more 
highly  developed  Churches,  before  the  death  of  St.  John. 
The  little  space  which  remains  will  be  devoted  to  a con- 
sideration of  the  more  interesting,  though,  as  I believe, 
equally  baseless  tradition  relating  to  his  part  in  its  found- 
ing. 

Unless  we  have  it  at  Jerusalem  in  the  person  of  St. 
James,  the  monarchial  Episcopate  did  not  exist  in  any 
Church  until  very  late  in  the  apostolic  age.  If,  however, 
St.  James  was  the  first  representative  of  this  institution, 
it  certainly  is  not  of  apostolic  authority,  for  he  did  not 
owe  his  unique  position  to  the  Apostles,  but  to  the  acci- 
dental, or  rather  Providential  circumstances  that  he  was 
the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  that  the  reins  of  leadership 
were  taken  up  by  him,  either  on  his  own  responsibility  or 
by  common  request,  when  they  had  been  dropped  by  the 
Apostles,  upon  their  fleeing  from  Jerusalem  to  escape  the 
Herodian  persecution.  The  reins  thus  acquired  were  not 
relinquished  upon  the  return  of  the  Apostles. 

In  the  associations,  brotherhoods  or  Churches  of  other 
places,  no  one  occupied  a position  corresponding  to  that 
of  St.  James  in  the  Jerusalem  brotherhood,  until  near 
the  end  of  the  apostolic  period.  If,  in  accordance  with 
tradition,  St.  John  survived  to  the  extreme  age  of  one 
hundred  years,  if  Ignatius  and  Poly  carp  were  monarchial 
Bishops  and  owed  their  office  to  his  appointment,  or  if 
the  angels  of  the  seven  Asia  Minor  Churches  were  real 
personages,  and  if  St.  John  wrote  the  Book  of  the  Reve- 


303  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

latlon,  all  very  big  “ ifs,”  there  would  perhaps  be  no 
insuperable  chronological  difficulty  in  the  way  of  supposing 
that  he  lived  to  see  the  first  microscopic,  protoplasmic 
germs  of  the  monarchial  Episcopate,  and  that  he  may 
have  given  some  encouragement  to  their  culture. 

Here  and  there  an  historical  critic  of  first  rank  does 
indeed  hesitatingly  venture  out  upon  the  shaky  ground 
of  tradition  far  enough  for  the  making  of  the  suggestion 
that  St.  John  did  live  to  see  some  of  these  germs  and  that 
he  was  so  pleased  with  them  that  he  gave  them  his  apos- 
tolic blessing;  but  such  scholars  are  few  and  far  between 
who  make  this  suggestion  without  completely  encasing  it 
with  qualifications  to  the  effect,  that  the  Beloved  Disci- 
ple had  nothing  to  do  with  the  organization  of  the  germs, 
that  he  was  not  alive  when  they  reached  maturity  and 
that  he  made  no  formal  provision  for  a regular  succession 
of  the  adult  specimen  in  the  several  Churches,  such  as 
the  Sacerdotal  hypothesis  postulates. 

I must  seriously  and  strongly  insist  that  the  admission 
that  St.  John  may  have  lived  to  see  some  of  the  primordial 
germs  of  the  monarchial  Episcopate,  and  that  he  may  have 
given  them  the  encouragement  and  sanction  of  his  prayers 
for  their  future  welfare,  marks  the  utmost  limits  to  which 
the  most  elastic  of  imaginations  could  be  stretched  in 
confirmation  of  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession, without  breaking  away  altogether  from  the  re- 
straints of  the  established  historical  facts  having  a bearing 
upon  the  subject  of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  and  ministry. 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


303 


The  tradition  respecting  St.  John  constitutes,  so  to 
speak,  the  last  ditch  of  the  Sacerdotalists  in  which  they 
can  take  refuge,  while  continuing  the  desperate  struggle 
to  maintain  their  doctrine  concerning  the  apostolicity  of 
the  monarchial  Episcopate,  with  all  the  non-Christian 
enormities,  Jewish  and  Heathen,  that  they  rest  upon  it. 

It  is  really  no  longer  within  the  range  of  possibilities 
that  any  scholar  should  maintain,  without  qualifications 
which  are  tantamount  to  a nullification  of  his  arguments, 
that  the  other  Apostles  had  anything  to  do  with  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  monarchial  Episcopate.  This  being 
the  case,  even  if  the  altogether  improbable  tradition  re- 
specting St.  John’s  connection  with  the  institution  be  true, 
it  cannot  be  consistently  claimed  that  it  is  among  the 
Gospel  essentials. 

For,  if  in  accordance  with  the  representations  of  Sac- 
erdotalists, Jesus  ordained  that  the  Twelve  and  their 
successors  should  take  His  place,  making  the  existence 
of  the  Church  and  the  efficacy  of  the  sacramental  means  of 
grace,  and  in  fact,  covenanted  Gospel  salvation  itself  to 
depend  upon  them,  how  is  the  palpable  lack  of  Interest  in 
such  a vital  ordinance  of  His  to  be  given  a reasonable 
explanation? 

And  even  if  some  ingenius  Sacerdotalist  should  hit  upon 
a reason  for  this  hitherto  inexplicable  neglect  of  such  an 
Important  matter  by  all  the  Apostles,  save  one,  and  by 
him  until  he  was  extremely  old,  how  could  the  representa- 
tives of  the  several  Historic  Episcopates,  in  any  literal, 
proper  sense  of  the  phrase,  be  said  to  be  the  tactual 


304  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

successors  of  the  Apostles?  The  best  that  could  be 
claimed  for  them  is  that  they  are  successors  of  St.  John. 

But  where  is  the  Divine  commission  by  which  any  one 
of  the  Apostles  was  authorized  to  establish  a monarchial 
Episcopate,  and  make  provision  for  its  perpetuation  ? The 
only  Apostle  on  behalf  of  whom  a claim  to  do  such  a 
thing  could  be  made,  with  any  show  of  reason,  is  St. 
Peter.  But  it  is  no  longer  claimed  by  any  first  rate 
scholar  that  the  monarchial  Episcopate  was  established 
before  his  death. 

The  theory  respecting  the  origin  of  the  monarchial 
Episcopate  that  finds  most  favor  among  the  expert  workers 
in  the  field  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities  is  that  which  makes 
St.  Paul,  rather  than  Jesus  or  any  of  the  Twelve  responsi- 
ble for  its  doctrinal  germ.  But  St.  Paul  was  not  an 
original  Apostle  and  therefore  a Pauline  Episcopate, 
whether  of  early  or  late  development,  could  not,  I think, 
be  made  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  Succession.  However  this  may  be  the  repre- 
sentative Sacerdotalists,  with  whose  writings  we  are  here 
concerned,  have  as  yet  made  no  really  serious  effort  to 
press  it  into  this  service,  and  as  neither  they  nor  any  of 
their  successors,  as  Sacerdotal  apologists  are  likely  ever  to 
make  a successful  attempt  to  do  so,  there  is  no  occasion 
for  entering  here  upon  so  large  and  difficult  a subject. 

That  which  is  absolutely  certain,  that  which  really 
settles  the  whole  question  respecting  the  devolutionary  or 
evolutionary  origin  of  the  monarchial  Episcopate  is  the 
simple,  undeniable  fact  that  Episcopacy  is  but  the  eccle- 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


305 


siastical  embodiment  of  the  principles  which  lie  at  the 
basis  of  every  social  organism,  and  exist  quite  independ- 
ently of  Christianity.  These  principles,  as  we  have  re- 
peatedly had  occasion  to  observe,  are  unity  and  superin- 
tendence under  one  headship.  They  are  Divine  forces 
which  belong  to  the  very  constitution  of  things  social,  and 
consequently,  their  manifestation  in  the  Christian  associa- 
tions or  churches  was  an  inevitable  necessity. 

The  Episcopal  principles  organized  themselves.  They 
did  not  need  a human  organizer,  any  more  than  the 
principle  of  gravitation,  which  holds  the  universe  together, 
or  the  principle  of  conservation  of  energy,  upon  which 
its  continuance  is  dependent,  needs  such  an  organizer.  If 
there  was  to  be  a Christian  church  of  any  age  and  size, 
with  anything  to  do,  the  principles  of  unity  and  super- 
intendence under  one  headship  would,  of  course,  have  in 
due  time  some  embodiment  in  a monarchial  Episcopate. 

The  institution  of  the  monctrchial  Episcopate  did  not 
then  require  a St.  Peter  or  a St.  Paul  or  a St.  John  to 
organize  it,  any  more  than  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  require 
a lamp-lighter.  As  these  Heavenly  bodies  shine  of  them- 
selves on  account  of  the  very  nature  by  which  God  en- 
dowed them,  so  the  monarchial  Episcopate  exists  of  itself, 
because  of  a Divinely  appointed  necessity,  inherent  in  all 
social  organisms,  whether  domestic,  religious,  civil,  indus- 
trial or  commercial. 

Everywhere,  throughout  the  whole  social  realm,  the 
monarchial  Episcopate  exists  as  a Divine  necessity.  The 
Sacerdotal  hypothesis  of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the 


306  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

Episcopate  of  the  Christian  churches  is  therefore  as 
unscientific  and  belittling  as  it  is  unhistorlc  and  super- 
stitious. 

As  the  whole  superstructure  of  Christian  Sacerdotal- 
ism rests  upon  tradition,  the  interests  of  truth  require  that 
the  worthlessness  of  its  testimony  to  the  institutions,  doc- 
trines and  customs  of  Christianity  should  be  made  to  ap- 
pear. Fortunately,  Auguste  Sabatier,  the  late  Dean  of 
the  Protestant  Faculty  of  Theology  in  the  University  of 
Paris,  one  of  the  greatest  among  modern  scientific  theo- 
logians and  historical  critics,  has  rendered  this  service 
to  the  cause  of  truth  in  an  exceedingly  comprehensive  and 
brilliantly  illuminating  passage  that  is  short  enough  for 
quotation.  No  candid  representative  of  Sacerdotalism, 
who  is  open  to  conviction,  and  knows  of  the  eminence  of 
the  Dean  as  an  historical  authority,  can  read  the  passage 
and  be  quite  the  same  Sacerdotalist  afterwards  that  he  was 
before.  It  runs  as  follows: 

“To  raise  a new  historic  tradition  to  the  rank  of 
supernatural  tradition  and  divine,  permanent  inspiration  in 
the  Church  itself,  one  must  either  forget  history  or  do  vio- 
lence to  it.  The  Catholic  theory  rests  upon  three  prem- 
ises which  are  not  only  undemonstrable,  but  fictitious: 
1.  That  the  Apostles  drew  up  and  left  to  their  suc- 
cessors an  unchangeable  formulary  of  Christian  faith.  2. 
That  succeeding  generations  added  nothing,  subtracted 
nothing,  changed  nothing,  as  to  the  customs  and  ideas 
which  they  inherited.  3.  That  Bishops  are  the  successors 
of  the  Apostles  and  heirs  of  their  gifts  and  privileges. 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


307 


“These  three  affirmations  are  wholly  illusory,  and  a 
single  reading  of  the  original  texts  is  enough  to  dissipate 
them  irrecoverably.  But  at  the  end  of  the  second  century 
historic  criticism  did  not  exist.  Men  lived  in  the  super- 
natural, and  the  stream  of  the  marvelous  flowed  full. 
In  such  a time  dogma  becomes  a prolific  mother  of  legends. 
The  reflection  of  the  idea  then  dominant  transforms  the 
vision  of  the  past.  History  is  altered  wherever  it  shows 
itself  contrary  to  the  dogma;  where  silence  would  do  it 
harm  it  is  made  to  speak.  It  is  common  enough  to  see 
children  who  have  attained  years  of  strength  fostering  and 
caring  for  the  aged  father  to  whom  they  owe  life.  Thus, 
in  the  course  of  the  centuries,  the  pious  legends  of  tradition 
came  forward  to  legitimize  and  defend  the  dogma  of 
which  they  were  bom. 

“ These  legends,  which  we  must  remember  were  the 
product  and  complement  of  the  Catholic  theory  of  tradi- 
tion, came  into  being  at  three  points,  and  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  developed  along  three  parallel  lines, 
with  ever  greater  definiteness  and  wealth  of  embellish- 
ment. 

1.  The  first  were  the  Episcopal  lists,  which,  from 
about  the  year  1 80,  began  to  be  formed  in  all  the  great 
Churches  to  establish  the  line  of  Apostolic  Succession  in 
material  and  tangible  form.  To  this  end  traditional  memo- 
ries were  drawn  upon  and  names  were  borrowed  from 
the  apostolic  writings.  Starting  with  Eleutherus,  who  died 
in  188,  we  may  go  back  by  names  sufficiently  authentic 
as  far  as  Sixtus  or  Alexander,  about  the  year  130;  but 


308  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

back  of  this  the  lists  of  the  early  popes  or  Bishops  of  Rome 
have  absolutely  no  value.  The  reason  is  simple.  There 
\vas  no  Episcopate  in  Rome,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the 
word,  before  the  reign  of  Hadrian  (117-138),  as  we 
shall  presently  see. 

“ There  was  need  of  these  official  lists  in  the  polemic 
against  the  Gnostic  doctors  and  Montanist  prophets;  and 
it  is  a matter  of  experience  that  documents  of  which  any 
authority  finds  a practical  need  are  always  produced. 

“2.  The  twelve  Jewish  Apostles  of  Jesus  appear  to 
have  restricted  their  teaching  to  their  own  people.  Paul 
gives  them  no  part  m the  evangelization  of  the  pagan 
world.  It  is  one  of  the  paradoxes  of  history  that  they 
should  have  become  from  the  close  of  the  second  century 
the  traditional  patrons  and  authorities  of  the  great 
Churches  in  whose  foundation  they  had  almost  no  part, 
while  Paul  and  his  fellow-laborers,  Titus,  Sosthenes, 
Aquila,  Apollos,  those  daring  pioneers  of  the  new 
religion,  are  forgotten  or  relegated  to  the  second  rank  and 
to  obscurity.  Paul  is  despoiled  by  John  in  Ephesus  and 
Asia,  as  in  Antioch  and  Rome  by  Peter,  whose  humble 
and  docile  satellite  he  becomes.  This  historic  paradox 
is  explained  by  the  legends  which  came  into  being  at  the 
epoch  at  which  we  have  now  arrived.  They  show  us 
the  Twelve  assembled  at  Jerusalem  dividing  among  them- 
selves the  map  of  the  world,  and  then  setting  forth,  each 
to  conquer  with  the  strong  aid  of  a miracle  and  at  last 
of  martyrdom,  the  province  which  to  him  had  been  as- 
signed. From  the  forensic  standpoint  of  the  theory  of 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


309 


tradition,  it  was  necessary  that  the  Episcopal  order  should 
everywhere  find  the  name  of  an  Apostle  to  which  to 
fasten  its  initial  link. 

“ 3.  Finally,  to  all  these  legends  must  be  added,  as 
tending  to  the  same  end,  those  which  grew  up  around  the 
Symbol  (Creed)  of  the  Apostles.  In  the  beginning  the 
title  apostolic,  applied  to  a traditional  rule  of  faith,  was 
doubtless  intended  only  to  declare  the  essential  conformity 
of  this  faith  to  that  preached  by  the  Apostles.  But  soon 
the  people  began  to  understand  it  in  a stricter  and  more 
literal  sense.  About  the  middle  of  the  third  century  it  was 
said  and  believed  in  Rome  that  the  symbol  had  been 
brought  to  the  capital  of  the  empire  by  Peter  himself,  and 
consequently  that  it  dated  back  to  the  very  foundation 
of  the  Church.  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan,  confirmed 
this  pious  legend  which  Rufinus  a little  later  embellished. 
Before  separating,  says  the  writer,  the  Apostles  with 
a view  to  defining  the  faith  which  they  were  about  to 
preach  throughout  the  universe,  conjointly  put  into  form 
the  terms  of  the  symbol  which  each  one  then  carried  with 
him.  But  a legend  is  like  a plant,  continually  putting  out 
new  branches  and  flowers.  Isidore  of  Seville  knows  much 
more  about  this  one  than  his  predecessors.  He  tells  how 
the  Apostles  met  in  conclave  in  Jerusalem.  Each  one  of 
them  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  rising  in  turn,  uttered, 
in  the  silence  of  the  others,  an  article  of  the  Credo.  This 
is  why  the  Creed  has  twelve  articles.  It  became  pos- 
sible even  to  set  over  against  each  of  the  articles  the  name 
of  the  Apostle  who  proclaimed  it.  The  Roman  Cate- 


310 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


chism  at  last  adopted  and  consecrated  the  whole  legend. 
What  more  striking  example  could  be  cited  of  the  birth, 
evolution,  and  triumph  of  a religious  tradition?”  Religions 
of  Authority,  pages  58-61. 

Elsewhere  Dean  Sabatier  says:  “The  history  of  Ca- 
tholicism (Sacerdotalism)  presents  the  singular  law,  that 
dogmatic  theory  always  lags  two  or  three  centuries  behind 
the  practical  reality.  A certain  condition  is  produced 
by  the  action  of  general  and  natural  causes;  thence,  the 
condition  being  established,  dogma  comes  in  to  supernatu- 
ralize,  and  consecrate  it  in  a formula  assumed  to  be  primi- 
tive and  divine.”  Religions  of  Authority,  page  69. 

Sabatier  has  stated  the  case  against  Sacerdotal  tradition- 
alism none  too  strongly.  The  Jewish  religion  was  orig- 
inally non-Sacerdotal  in  character.  It  had  been  the  Prot- 
estantism of  the  ancient  world.  During  all  the  ages  from 
Abraham  and  the  Patriarchs,  down  to  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  the  Jews  had  borne  a relationship  to  the  other 
peoples  resembling  that  of  the  Puritans  to  the  rest  of  Prot- 
estantism in  the  Reformation  period. 

But  while  sojourning  in  Babylon  the  Jewish  exiles  took 
up  with  heathen  Sacerdotalism,  the  seed  of  which  they 
planted  at  Jerusalem  upon  their  return  under  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah.  These  leaders.  Prophet  and  Governor,  co- 
operated in  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple,  and  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Sacerdotal  ministry  and  ritual.  The 
transported  seed  of  Sacerdotalism  sprang  up  and  became 
a great  tree  which,  by  the  time  of  the  Saviour’s  birth, 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


311 


completely  overshadowed  and  dwarfed  the  native  reli- 
gious growth. 

This  imposing  growth  was  the  gorgeous  and  promising 
fig  tree  of  Sacerdotalism,  or  traditionalism,  upon  which 
the  Divine  Layman  found  nothing  but  leaves  and  which 
He  cursed.  It  is  to  this  cursing  and  the  withering  which  fol- 
lowed that  modem  civilization  owes  its  existence.  The 
harshest  things  that  Jesus  had  to  say  were  said  against 
the  husbandmen  of  this  tree,  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  It 
was  against  them  and  their  Sacerdotal  successors  in  the 
Christian  church  that  He  pronounced  His  severe  woes. 

We  have  now  made  it  appear  that  Sacerdotal  “ Catho- 
lics” are  as  really  theorists  as  Republican  Protestants, 
differing  from  them  only  as  to  the  basis  upon  which  they 
rest  their  theories  concerning  the  Christian  church,  min- 
istry and  sacraments.  Sacerdotalists  rest  their  theories 
respecting  these  on  the  basis  of  tradition;  Republicans 
on  historical  facts.  Historical  criticism  has  shown  the 
basis  of  tradition  to  be  so  unreliable  as  not  to  afford  a safe 
foundation  for  any  important  doctrine. 

The  real  question  at  issue  between  Sacerdotalists  and 
Republicans  is  not,  then,  concerned  with  the  right  to 
theorize,  for  when  the  Sacerdotalist  calls  the  Republican 
a theorist  he  is  following  the  foolish  exam.ple  of  the  pot 
in  calling  the  kettle  black.  It  is  a question  of  whether  or 
not  traditional.  Sacerdotal  Christianity  may  be  and  should 
be  rejected  for  historical.  Republican  Christianity. 

The  answer  to  this  question  is  found  in  the  fact  that  both 
Jesus  and  His  great  interpreter,  St.  Paul,  rejected  Jewish 


312 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


Sacerdotalism.  As  they  rejected  the  Sacerdotal  priest- 
hood, doctrines  and  customs  which  had  been  carried  over 
from  Heathenism  into  Judaism  so  we  not  only  may  but 
should  reject  the  Sacerdotal  ministry,  doctrines  and  cus- 
toms which  have  been  carried  over  from  Judaism  and 
Heathenism  to  Christianity. 

In  referring  to  the  assertion  of  Bishop  Hall,  about  the 
necessity  of  interpreting  New  Testament  and  early  Chris- 
tianity by  the  light  of  the  existing  institutions  and  accepted 
traditions  of  later  times,  a friend  of  mine  disposes  of  his 
claims  on  behalf  of  Sacerdotalism  in  this  summary  and 
effectual  manner:  “On  the  theory  of  Bishops  Hall  and 
Gore,  any  accepted  order  of  the  present,  however  new  the 
development,  could  be  read  back  into  the  history  of  the 
past,  if  that  history  happened,  for  any  reason,  to  be  suffi- 
ciently ‘ obscure  ’ on  the  matter  to  satisfy  the  advocates 
of  the  accepted  order.” 

III.  The  Summary  of  Conclusions  which  are  alleged 
by  Bishop  Hall  to  have  been  established  by  the  array  of 
Facts  and  Arguments  presented  in  his  Essay:  1.  The 
representation  is  made  (page  34)  that  “any  tampering 
with  the  principle  of  an  authoritative  Ministry  with  a 
transmitted  commission  would  indefinitely  delay  any  possi- 
bility of  reunion  with  the  Latin  and  Greek  communions 
and  forfeit  our  opportunity  to  act  as  mediator  between 
the  old  historic  churches  and  the  reformed  bodies.” 

There  is  something  altogether  impracticable  and  bizarre 
about  the  idea  that  the  Anglican  Communion  is  in  a posi- 
tion to  mediate  between  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


313 


and  the  Protestant  Churches.  There  is  no  hope  of  our 
commending  ourselves  to  the  Roman  Church,  however 
extreme  a Sacerdotal  basis  we  may  occupy;  and  Sacer- 
dotalism  puts  us  altogether  out  of  touch  with  Protestant-' 
ism. 

2.  In  his  criticism  of  my  plan  as  he  understands  it 
(page  35),  Bishop  Hall  leaves  out  of  account  two  facts: 

( 1 ) That  the  plan  provides  for  the  evolution  of  unity 
through  a Common  Ministry,  and  (2)  that  Sacerdotal 
Episcopacy  is  no  guarantee  against  error  in  doctrine. 

The  Roman  and  Greek  Churches  have  always  been 
Episcopal  and  yet  in  Article  xix  we  declare  that  they 
“have  erred  in  matters  of  faith.”  Sacerdotal  Episcopacy 
has  likewise  failed  to  preserve  unity  among  those  possess- 
ing it.  The  most  hopeless  divisions  of  Christendom  are 
those  which  separate  the  Roman,  Greek  and  Anglican 
Communions,  all  of  which  have  one  of  the  three  Historic 
Episcopates. 

3.  In  his  statement  of  the  issue  (page  35)  the  Bishop 
of  Verm.ont  says:  “ Church  principles,  including  the  or- 
derly transmission  of  the  ministerial  commission  are  a 
part  of  God’s  design  for  His  Church,  or  they  are  merely 
human  arrangements,  convenient  perhaps  and  desirable 
under  many  conditions,  but  necessarily  alterable.” 

I understand  these  words  to  mean  that  a Ministry  de- 
rived according  to  the  Sacerdotal  theory  of  the  Apostolic 
Succession  is  a part  of  God’s  plan  and  so  of  Divine  origin. 


314  sacerdotal  and  I’KOTESTANT  doctrines. 

And  that  a Ministry  otherwise  derived  is  of  human  ar- 
rangement and  origin. 

This  is  the  explanation  of  such  expressions  as  the  fol- 
lowing made  by  a diocesan  convention  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.  “ Any  plan  for  Church  unity  which  involves  a 
surrender  or  impairment  of  our  belief  in  the  superior  and 
Divine  origin  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 
as  distinct  from  the  Ministries  of  the  Protestant  Bodies 
would  be  unacceptable.” 

Here  again  we  see  the  unnaturalness  of  the  Sacerdotal 
conception  of  the  supernatural.  Before  my  door,  as  I 
write,  is  a wagon  on  which  is  painted  in  large  letters, 
“ Artificial  Ice.”  Here  comes  the  driver  with  one  hundred 
pounds  of  it.  I do  not  want  artificial  ice,  but  genuine  ice, 
and  he  is  bringing  the  real  thing.  The  “ manufactured  ” 
ice  which  we  use  in  the  South  is  just  as  real,  genuine,  and 
useful  as  is  the  “unmanufactured”  ice  used  in  the  North. 
Both  were  formed  by  the  operation  of  the  same  Divinely 
appointed  laws  of  nature.  In  the  one  case,  man  directed 
and  utilized  those  laws  and  in  the  other  he  did  not;  but 
both  kinds  of  ice  are  equally  natural  and  equally  divine. 
The  ice  that  I use  is  not  artificial. 

Episcopacy  is,  as  I have  repeatedly  said,  the  embodi- 
ment of  the  eternal,  universal  principles  of  unity  and  super- 
intendence under  one  headship.  One  such  Ministry  is 
just  as  much  of  Divine  origin  as  another.  If  the  Ministries 
of  the  ancient  Churches  are  compared  with  the  “ unmanu- 
factured” ice  of  the  North,  the  Ministries  of  the  modern 
Churches  may  be  compared  to  the  “manufactured”  ice 


HALLOS  APOSTOLIC  MINISTRY.  315 

of  the  South.  No  ground  in  reason  presents  itself  on 
which  the  ancient  Churches  can  set  up  the  claim  to  a more 
Divine,  authoritative  or  efficient  Ministry  than  that  which 
is  possessed  by  the  modern  Churches.  As  both  ices,  un- 
manufactured and  manufactured  are  Divine  and  serve 
the  purposes  of  ice;  so  both  Ministries,  ancient  and 
modern,  are  Divine  for  all  the  purposes  of  a Christian 
ministry. 

It  should  be  remembered  by  the  representatives  of  the 
ancient  Christian  churches  with  inherited  Ministries  that 
the  quality  of  age  is  not  a guarantee  of  superiority.  Rather 
the  opposite  is  true.  A strong  argument  might  be  formu- 
lated to  the  effect  that  human  institutions,  like  men  and 
women,  have  an  age  limit,  beyond  which  their  usefulness 
diminishes  rather  than  increases.  It  cannot  be  maintained 
that  a Church  has  no  age  limit,  because  it  is  a Divine  insti- 
tution; for  surely  It  is  no  more  Divine  than  its  people. 
All  indispensable  human  institutions  are  Divine  because 
the  people  who  constitute  them  are  Divine  as  the  result 
of  the  Incarnation  which  took  place  in  the  Adam  and  the 
Christ. 

Horses  and  dogs,  though  they  are  very  noble  crea- 
tures, cannot  constitute  a Divine  institution.  The  Divine- 
ness of  an  institution  depends  upon  the  Divineness  of  its 
adherents  and  upon  the  Divineness  of  the  principles  which 
it  embodies.  The  Family,  State  and  Church  are  Divine 
institutions.  In  the  degree  of  their  Divineness  the  Family 
comes  first,  not  the  Church,  as  Sacerdotalists  would  have 
us  believe.  The  Family  is  the  most  Divine  of  institu- 


316  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

tions  because  it  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  other  institu- 
tions which  enter  into  the  superstructure  of  civilization. 

The  universal  extension  and  complete  development  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Christ  is  the  goal  of  civilization.  In  pro- 
portion as  an  institution  helps  forward  toward  that  goal  it 
is  Divine  in  its  efficiency.  As  I have  said,  institutions, 
like  men  and  women  who  constitute  them,  have  an  age 
limit.  Institutions  die  a much  slower  death  than  men  and 
women.  But,  nevertheless,  they  do  die.  Unlike  men  and 
women  they  generally  die  of  old  age ; and  unlike  them  also 
they  become  antiquated  and  useless  long  before  their  death. 

If  an  institution  is  to  continue  Divine  in  the  sense  of 
efficiency  it  must  constantly  be  renewing  its  youth  by  read- 
justments, and  even  by  reorganizations  which  will  enable 
it  to  meet  new  conditions.  There  is  a close  analogy  be- 
tween human  bodies  and  human  institutions.  As  the  body 
of  an  octogenarian  is  not  more  than  seven  years  old,  so 
the  organization  of  a millennial  Church  is  not  more  than 
a generation  or  two  old.  There  is,  then,  a sense  in  which 
it  may  be  said  that  the  Methodist  Church  is  as  old  as  the 
Roman  Church. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal,  the  Presbyterian  and  the 
Congregational  forms  of  the  Ministry  are  just  as  truly  of 
Divine  origin  and  authority  as  the  Roman,  the  Greek  or 
the  Anglican.  All  alike  are  of  human  origin  and  au- 
thority; and,  all  alike  are  of  Divine  origin  and  authority, 
in  proportion  as  they  embody  the  eternal  and  Divine  prin- 
ciples of  unity  and  superintendence  under  one  headship. 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry.  317 

4.  I am  glad  to  see  that  Bishop  Hall  contends  (page 
36)  that  the  Ministry  cannot  be  regarded  as  a caste;  but 
on  the  theory  that  ministerial  character  is  given  in  ordina- 
tion it  must  be  concluded  that  at  the  laying  on  of  hands 
by  a successor  of  the  Apostles  the  ordinand  is  differentiated 
from  other  Christians.  Upon  this  hypothesis  it  is  necessary 
for  us  to  conclude  that  the  Ministry  is  a caste. 

5.  In  considering  St.  Paul’s  analogy  in  which  he  com- 
pares the  members  of  the  Church  to  the  several  members 
of  the  human  body  (page  37),  Bishop  Hall  loses  sight 
of  the  fact  that  there  is  no  differentiation  between  the 
members  of  the  human  body  corresponding  to  the 
differentiation  between  the  Clergy  and  the  Laity  which 
the  Sacerdotal  theory  of  ministerial  character  conveyed 
by  ordination  postulates. 

6.  The  Bishop  of  Vermont  (page  38)  gives  up  the 
task  of  proving  that  the  transmission  of  the  ministerial 
commission  is  limited  exclusively  to  the  Episcopate. 

This  is  an  important  concession,  for  if  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation is  not  the  exclusive  mode,  but  only  the  ordinary 
and  normal  mode  of  such  transmission,  it  follows  that  this 
ordination  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  a valid  Ministry ; 
and  hence  some  other  kind  of  ordination  might  be  adopted 
which  would  be  valid  and  might  in  time  become  normal 
and  ordinary. 

As  I interpret  Bishop  Hall’s  language  a non-Episcopal 
ordination  would  be  an  abnormal  or  extraordinary  ordi- 
nation, but  that  nevertheless  it  might  transmit  the  ministe- 
rial commission,  and  consequently  enable  the  ordinand  to 


318  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

validly  administer  the  Sacraments.  The  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union  could  be  carried  out  on  this  admission. 

7.  Bishop  Hall  (page  38)  comes  over  fully  to  my 
position  when  he  says:  “ The  acceptance  of  no  theory  of 
the  Apostolic  Succession  is  required  of  either  Lay  people 
or  of  the  Clergy.  The  due  transmission  of  ministerial 
authority  may  be  regarded  as  belonging  rather  to  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Church  than  in  the  stricter  sense  to  its  Doc- 
trine.” 

This  admission  determines  to  which  of  Bishop  Hall’s 
two  divisions  (page  35)  “the  due  transmission  of  minis- 
terial authority  ” belongs : ( 1 ) whether  it  is  a part  of 
“God’s  design  for  His  Church,”  a “principle  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,”  “ a necessary  guarantee  for  God’s 
pledged  sanction  and  ratification  of  the  administration  of 
the  Sacraments”  and  unchangeable;  or  (2)  whether  it 
is  of  “human  arrangement,”  or  a matter  of  “spiritual 
convenience,  or  ecclesiastical  order”  and  changeable. 

Bishop  Hall’s  admission  that  the  transmission  of  min- 
isterial authority  belongs  to  discipline  and  not  to  doctrine 
clearly  places  Episcopal  ordination  in  the  second  of  these 
divisions  and  I agree  with  this  conclusion. 

This  is  the  bed-rock  upon  which  I build  my  Level 
Plan;  and  it  finds  its  ample  justification  in  the  Preface 
to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer:  “ In  every  Church, 
what  cannot  be  clearly  determined  to  belong  to  Doctrine 
must  be  referred  to  Discipline ; and  therefore,  by  common 
consent  and  authority,  may  be  altered,  abridged,  enlarged, 
amended  or  otherwise  disposed  of,  as  may  seem  most  con- 


hall’s  apostolic  ministry. 


319 


venient  for  the  edification  of  the  people,’  according  to  the 
various  exigencies  of  times  and  occasions.” 

Bishop  Hall  and  I agree  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  of  which  we  are  members,  and  the  great  Com- 
munion of  which  it  is  a part,  has  no  doctrine  of  obligation 
concerning  the  Christian  ministry.  Hence,  he  is  perfectly 
free  to  hold  to  the  Sacerdotal,  traditional,  mediaeval,  un- 
scientific, devolutionary,  supernatural  theory  of  its  origin 
and  authority,  and  I,  thank  God,  am  equally  free  to  hold 
to  the  Protestant,  Republican,  historical,  modern,  scien- 
tific, evolutionary,  natural  theory. 

The  Prayer  Book  is,  next  to  the  Bible,  the  highest  au- 
thority in  the  Churches  of  the  Anglican  Communion.  It  is, 
so  to  speak,  “the  little  Bible  ” of  these  Churches  and  holds 
a place  with  them  which  corresponds  to  that  held  by 
“ the  big  Bible,”  in  Christendom  at  large.  The  Prayer 
Book  would  fully  justify  our  Churches  in  officially  propos- 
ing the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  to  their  sister  and 
daughter  Churches. 

As  even  Bishop  Hall  admits,  questions  appertaining 
to  the  Christian  ministry,  belong  to  the  realm  of  Disci- 
pline. As  we  have  just  seen,  in  the  Preface  to  the  Prayer 
Book,  it  is  distinctly  declared  that  what  belongs  to  this 
realm  “ by  common  consent  and  authority,  may  be  altered, 
according  to  the  various  exigencies  of  times  and  occasions.” 

Provision  has  been  made  for  the  covering  of  much  of 
the  ground  traversed  by  the  great  Sacerdotal  writers,  Drs. 
Gore,  Moberly  and  Hall,  in  the  section  of  Lecture  I, 
entitled,  “ The  Apostolic  Succession,”  and  in  the  remain- 


320 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


ing  sections  of  this  Lecture,  “ The  Historical  Critics,” 
and  “Grace  of  Sacraments.”  The  showing  as  a whole 
is  to  the  effect  that,  quite  contrary  to  the  fundamental 
assumption  of  Sacerdotalists,  covenanted  Gospel  salva- 
tion is  not  inseparably  connected  with  Baptism  and  the 
Holy  Communion,  and  that  the  validity  and  efficacy  of 
these  Sacraments  are  dependent  upon  the  Lay  Priesthood 
of  the  recipient,  not  upon  the  Ministerial  Priesthood  of 
the  administrators  of  them. 

III. 

THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 

IF  SPACE  could  be  commanded  for  the  purpose,  I 
should  be  glad  to  make  extensive  quotations  from  the 
writings  of  the  great  expert  authorities  in  the  field  of 
ecclesiastical  antiquities,  for  the  purpose  of  confirming  the 
representations  that  have  been  made  in  this  book  concern- 
ing the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry  and 
the  development  of  the  monarchial  Episcopate ; but,  under 
the  limitations  which  are  upon  me,  the  best  that  I can  do  is 
to  give  six  or  seven  among  such  quotations  and  they  must 
be  short. 

I. 

The  first  quotation  shall  be  a remarkably  illuminating 
extract  from  a book  entitled,  “ The  Apostolic  Age.” 
The  author  of  this  work  has  specialized  in  Primitive 
Church  history  sufficiently  to  secure  to  himself  the  enviable 


THE  ITISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


321 


distinction  of  being  invited  to  treat  of  the  most  difficult  and 
important  period  in  the  whole  range  of  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, as  it  is  so  admirably  covered  in  that  recently  published 
great  work,  entitled,  “ Ten  Epochs  of  Church  History.” 

Besides  stating  the  facts  with  which  we  are  here  con- 
cerned, this  author  makes  two  or  three  citations  that  should 
set  Sacerdotalists  to  thinking.  We  begin  our  quotation 
from  “ The  Apostolic  Age,”  where  the  author  cites  Dr. 
Hort  as  saying  of  the  New  Testament  Church: 

Of  officers  higher  than  Elders  we  find  nothing  that 
pomts  to  an  institution  or  system,  nothing  like  the  Epis- 
copal system  of  later  times.’  ” 

Then  our  author  goes  on  to  say:  ” In  the  New  Tes- 
tament the  word  Episcopos,  as  applied  to  men,  mainly,  if 
not  always,  is  not  a title,  but  a description  of  the  Elder’s 
function.  Many  would  except  Phil,  i : 1 , from  the  latter 
rule.  But  the  former  holds  not  only  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  for  Clement’s  epistle  also.  Episcopoi  or  over- 
seers (Bishops),  then,  are  always  found  as  a body  of 
officers  in  a single  local  Church;  and  no  function  is  as  yet 
definitely  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  one  Episcopos 
in  such  a sense  as  to  put  him  in  an  order  by  himself.  The 
nearest  approach  to  this  before  70  (besides  James’  posi- 
tion at  Jerusalem,  due  to  personal  and  family  reasons) 
appears  in  the  temporary  functions  entrusted  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  as  representing  St.  Paul  in  the  completion  of 
organization  in  Ephesus  and  Crete  respectively.  But  they 
were  not  permanent  local  officers,  only  apostolic  assistants 
on  detached  service.  Thus  the  first  real  forerunner  of 


322 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


the  single  or  monarchial  Bishop,  as  found  in  the  Ignatian 
Epistles  (about  1 1 0-1 1 5 A.  D.)  is  Diotrephes,  who  seems 
to  have  been  paramount  in  his  Church.  Yet  there  is  no 
sign  that  even  he  was  superior  in  status,  rather  than  in- 
fluence, to  his  fellow-elders. 

“ It  is  possible,  however,  that  in  the  last  years  of  the 
first  century  things  were  setting  steadily  towards  the  emer- 
gence of  a third  order  distinct  from  Elders  or  Presbyter- 
Bishops,  as  these  were  now  becoming  more  marked  off 
from  Deacons.  This  may  be  inferred  from  the  Ignatian 
letters  some  fifteen  or  twenty  years  later;  although  even 
then,  Ignatius,  as  his  insistent  tone  implies,  writes  not  as 
an  historian,  describing  facts,  but  rather  as  a prophet  im- 
pressing an  ideal.  In  his  advocacy  of  a single  Bishop 
as  a center  of  visible  unity  in  each  Church,  he  had  his 
eye  on  the  needs  of  the  future  rather  than  on  the  facts  of 
the  past.  He  saw  in  the  actual  predominance  of  a pre- 
siding elder  or  Bishop,  primus  inter  pares,  as  found  at 
Antioch  and  in  certain  developed  Churches  in  the  prov- 
inces of  Asia,  and  nowhere  else  to  our  knowledge  save 
■ in  the  person  of  our  Lord’s  kinsman,  Symeon — the  best 
guarantee  of  outward  order  at  a time  when  centrifugal 
tendencies  were  strong.  Accordingly  he  tried  to  strengthen 
the  Bishop’s  position  by  furnishing  it  will)  a new  theoretic 
basis.  But  the  striking  thing  is  that,  while  fertile  in  ideal 
arguments  and  analogies,  he  never  claims  for  his  favorite 
institution  apostolic  origin  or  commission,  and  that  in  the 
region  where  John’s  name  was  of  supreme  authority.  As 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


323 


Dr.  Moberly  justly  observes:  ‘ It  is  only  as  the  symbol 
of  unity  that  the  Bishop  is  magnified.’ 

“ Ignatius  therefore  fully  supports  Jerome’s  account 
of  the  rise  of  the  single  pastor  or  Bishop,  namely,  ‘ that 
the  germs  of  factions  might  be  removed.’  And  in  this 
light  the  development  was  a valuable  one,  so  expedient 
that  the  vast  majority  of  Churches  to-day  make  it  the  key- 
stone of  organization,  the  last  addition,  making  firm  the 
rest  of  the  arch.”  The  Apostolic  Age,  pp.  489,  490, 
491. 


II. 

Professor  Mosheim,  a celebrated  expert  in  the  field 
of  Christian  antiquities,  probably  the  most  learned  man 
of  his  generation,  who  wrote  more  than  one  hundred 
years  ago,  and  with  whom  all  specialists  who  have  worked 
in  that  field  ever  since  his  time  have  been  in  substantial 
accord,  says,  in  his  ‘‘History  of  the  Christian  Church:” 

‘‘  Such  was  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church,  in 
its  infancy,  when  its  assemblies  were  neither  numerous  nor 
splendid.  Three  or  four  Presbyters,  men  of  remarkable 
piety  and  wisdom,  ruled  these  small  congregations  in 
perfect  harmony,  nor  did  they  stand  in  need  of  any  pres- 
ident or  superior  to  maintain  concord  and  order  where  no 
dissensions  were  known.  But  the  number  of  the  Presbyters 
and  Deacons  increasing  with  that  of  the  Churches,  and 
the  sacred  work  of  the  Ministry  growing  more  painful  and 


324  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

weighty  by  a number  of  additional  duties,  these  new  cir- 
cumstances required  new  regulations.  It  was  then  judged 
necessary  that  one  man  of  distinguished  gravity  and  wis- 
dom should  preside  in  the  council  of  Presbyters,  in  order 
to  distribute  among  his  colleagues  their  several  tasks,  and 
to  be  a center  of  unity  to  the  whole  society.  This  person 
was,  at  first,  styled  the  Angel  of  the  Church  to  which  he 
belonged,  but  was  afterwards  distinguished  by  the  name 
of  Bishop,  or  inspector,  a name  borrowed  from  the  Greek 
language  and  expressing  the  principal  part  of  the  Episco- 
pal function  which  was  to  inspect  into  and  superintend 
the  affairs  of  the  Church.  It  is  highly  probable  that  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem,  grown  considerably  numerous  and 
deprived  of  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles,  who  were  gone 
to  instruct  the  other  nations,  was  the  first  which  chose  a 
President  or  Bishop.  And  it  is  no  less  probable  that 
the  other  Churches  followed  by  degrees  such  a respectable 
example. 

“ Let  none,  however,  confound  the  Bishops  of  the  primi- 
tive and  golden  period  of  the  Church  with  those  of 
whom  we  read  in  the  following  ages.  For,  though  they 
were  both  distinguished  by  the  same  name  yet  they  differed 
extremely,  and  that  in  many  respects.  A Bishop  during 
the  first  and  second  century  was  a person  who  had  the 
care  of  one  Christian  assembly,  which,  at  that  time,  was, 
generally  speaking,  small  enough  to  be  contained  in  a 
private  house.  In  this  assembly  he  acted  not  so  much 
with  the  authority  of  a master  as  with  the  zeal  and  dili- 
gence of  a faithful  servant.  He  instructed  the  people. 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


325 


performed  the  several  parts  of  Divine  worship,  attended 
the  sick,  and  inspected  into  the  circumstances  and  supplies 
of  the  poor.  He  charged,  indeed,  the  Presbyters  with  the 
performance  of  those  duties  and  services  which  the  multi- 
plicity of  his  engagements  rendered  it  impossible  for  him 
to  fulfill;  but  had  not  the  power  to  decide  or  enact 
anything  without  the  consent  of  the  Presbyters  and  people. 
And,  though  the  Episcopal  office  was  both  laborious,  and 
singularly  dangerous,  yet  its  revenues  were  extremely 
small,  since  the  Church  had  no  certain  income,  but  de- 
pended on  the  gifts,  or  oblations  of  the  multitude,  which 
were,  no  doubt,  inconsiderable,  and  were,  moreover,  to 
be  divided  between  the  Bishops,  Presbyters,  Deacons, 
and  poor. 

“ The  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  were  not 
long  confined  to  these  narrow  limits,  but  soon  extended 
themselves,  and  that  by  the  following  means : The  Bishops 
who  lived  in  the  cities,  had,  either  by  their  own  Ministry, 
or  that  of  their  Presbyters,  erected  new  Churches  in  the 
neighboring  towns  and  villages.  These  Churches  con- 
tinuing under  the  inspection  and  Ministry  of  the  Bishops, 
by  whose  labors  and  counsels  they  had  been  engaged  to 
embrace  the  Gospel,  grew  imperceptibly  into  ecclesiastical 
provinces,  which  the  Greeks  afterwards  called  dioceses. 
But  as  the  Bishop  of  the  city  could  not  extend  his  labors 
and  inspection  to  all  these  Churches  in  the  country  and 
in  the  villages,  so  he  appointed  certain  suffragans,  or  depu- 
ties, to  govern  and  to  instruct  these  new  societies,  and 
they  were  distinguished  by  the  title  of  chorepiscopi,  that  is. 


326 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


Country  Bishops.  This  order  held  the  middle  rank  be- 
tween Bishops  and  Presbyters,  being  inferior  to  the  former 
and  superior  to  the  latter.” 


III. 

In  the  following  passage  which  I have  collated  from 
Professor  Ramsay’s  monumental  historical  work,  “The 
Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  to  A.  D.  1 70,”  we  have 
the  showing  of  a most  learned  and  candid  Presby- 
terian author  from  which  it  appears  on  his  great  author- 
ity that  the  Historic  Episcopate  grew  out  of  the  need 
of  the  Asia  Minor  Churches  for  confederation  in  doing 
philanthropic  work  and  in  resisting  persecution.  Professor 
Ramsay  says : 

“ Like  the  empire,  the  Church  fully  recognized  the 
duty  of  the  community  to  see  that  all  its  members  were  fed ; 
and  this  was  one  of  the  earliest  forms  in  which  the  ques- 
tion of  practical  organization  began  to  press  on  it.  (Acts 
vi.)  Further  organization  was  required  when  many  com- 
munities existed  in  different  lands,  all  considering  them- 
selves as  a brotherhood. 

“ As  it  was  completed  in  its  main  elements  by  A.  D. 
1 70,  the  organization  of  the  Church  may  be  described 
thus: 

“ 1 . Each  individual  community  was  ruled  by  a 
gradation  of  officials,  at  the  head  of  which  was  the 
Bishop;  and  the  Bishop  represented  the  community. 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


m 


“ 2.  All  communities  were  parts  of  a unity,  which  was 
co-extensive  with  the  Roman  world.  A name  for  this 
unity,  the  Universal  Catholic  Church,  is  first  found  in 
Ignatius,  and  the  idea  was  familiar  to  a pagan  writer  like 
Celsus,  perhaps  161-9  A.  D. 

“3.  Councils  determined  and  expressed  the  common 
views  of  a number  of  communities. 

“ 4.  Any  law  of  the  empire  which  conflicted  with  the 
principles  of  the  Church  must  give  way. 

“5.  All  laws  of  the  Empire  which  were  not  in  con- 
flict with  the  religion  of  the  Church  were  to  be  obeyed. 

“ In  this  completed  organization  the  Bishops  were  es- 
tablished as  the  ruling  heads  of  the  several  parts,  divided 
in  space  but  not  in  idea,  which  constituted  the  Church  in 
the  Roman  world.  The  history  of  this  organization  is,  to 
a great  extent,  the  history  of  the  Episcopal  power. 
The  Bishops  soon  became  the  directors  of  the  Church 
as  a party  struggling  against  the  Government. 

“ Such  a vast  organization  of  a perfectly  new  kind, 
with  no  analogy  in  previously  existing  institutions,  was 
naturally  slow  in  development.  We  regard  the  ideas 
underlying  it  as  originating  with  Paul. 

“ The  word  episkopos  means  overseer.  Originally, 
when  the  deliberative  council  of  Elders  resolved  to  perform 
some  action,  they  would  naturally  direct  one  of  their  num- 
ber to  superintend  it.  This  Presbyter  was  an  episkopos 
for  the  occasion.  Any  Presbyter  might  be  also  an  epis- 
kopos, and  the  terms  were  therefore  applied  to  the  same 
persons,  and  yet  conveyed  essentially  different  meanings. 


328  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

The  episkopos  appointed  to  perform  any  duty  was  nec- 
essarily single,  for  the  modern  idea  of  a committee  was  un- 
known; any  Presbyter  might  become  an  episkopos  for 
an  occasion,  yet  the  latter  term  conveyed  an  idea  of  single- 
ness and  of  executive  authority  which  was  wanting  to 
the  former.  On  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  an  order  of 
episkopoi  at  this  stage,  like  the  order  of  Presbyters,  is 
self-contradictory.  The  episkopos  was  necessarily  single, 
and  yet  there  might  be  many  episkopi  for  distinct  duties. 
Such  appears  to  be  the  natural  interpretation  of  the  term, 
as  it  was  used  in  ancient  life. 

“ It  was  natural  that  proved  aptness  and  power  in  an 
individual  Presbyter  should  lead  to  his  having  executive 
duties  frequently  assigned  to  him.  The  Imperial  idea 
was  in  the  air ; and  the  episkopos  tended  to  become  perma- 
nent, and  to  concentrate  executive  duties  in  his  hands. 
The  process  was  gradual,  and  no  violent  change  took 
place.  The  authority  of  the  episkopos  was  long  a dele- 
gated authority,  and  his  influence  depended  mainly  on  per- 
sonal qualities. 

“ The  scanty  and  unsatisfactory  evidence  of  the  first 
century  points  to  the  practical  permanence  of  the  episko- 
pos as  already  usual,  but  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that 
the  episkopos  was  considered  as  separate  in  principle  from 
his  co-Presbyters  (as  he  continued  for  centuries  to  term 
them).  He  was  only  a Presbyter  on  whom  certain  duties 
had  been  imposed.  There  was  in  practice  one  permanent 
episkopos  in  a community,  when  I Peter  ii,  25  was  written, 
and  when  the  messages  were  sent  to  the  angeloi  of  the 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


329 


seven  Asian  Churches ; but  the  episkopos  was  very  far  re- 
moved from  the  monarchial  Bishop  of  A.  D.  1 70,  and 
we  find  not  a trace  to  suggest  that  he  exercised  any 
authority  ex-oficio  within  the  community. 

“We  have  seen  that,  before  the  end  of  the  first  century, 
there  was,  as  a rule,  an  individual  episkopos  in  each  com- 
munity, who  tended  in  fact  to  be  permanent,  but  who  pos- 
sessed no  official  rank  except  as  a presbyteros.  It  may 
be  argued  that  the  account  we  have  given  of  his  position 
is  inconsistent  and  self-contradictory.  We  acknowledge 
that  this  is  so ; but  this  does  not  prove  it  to  be  untrue.  The 
office  was  in  process  of  rapid  growth,  and  no  account  of 
it  can  be  true  which  makes  it  logical  and  self-consistent  in 
character.  It  had  vast  potentiality,  for  the  whole  future 
of  the  Church  was  latent  in  it;  yet,  in  its  outward  ap- 
pearance and  its  relation  to  the  past,  it  was  humble,  and 
the  episkopos  was  merely  a Presbyter  in  special  circum- 
stances. His  actual  influence  depended  on  his  personal 
character. 

“Christian  communities,  registered  as  collegia  tenuiorum, 
and  held  property.  The  collegium  had  to  be  registered 
in  the  name  of  some  individual,  who  acted  as  its  head 
and  representative,  and  who  held  the  property  that  be- 
longed to  it.  We  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  episkopos 
was  the  representative  of  the  collegium,  for  he  already 
acted  as  representative  of  the  community  in  its  relation  to 
others.  About  259  Gallienus  granted  to  the  Bishops 
the  right  to  recover  the  cemeteries,  which  had  been  seized 
m the  recent  persecutions,  and  which  had  therefore  been 


330  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

registered  in  the  name  of  the  Bishops  a considerable  time 
previously.  This  being  the  case,  the  community  would  be 
unable  to  recover  such  property  by  ordinary  legal  process 
from  the  Bishop,  if  he  were  deposed  or  changed;  for  it 
could  not  appear  before  a court  except  through  its  Bishop. 
Permanence  in  the  discharge  of  Episcopal  duties  was 
usual  long  before  130.” 


IV. 

In  the  important  departments  of  Pauline  and  Apostolic 
Patristic  literatures,  the  late  Bishop  Lightfoot  of  Durham 
is  the  most  renowned  of  all  ecclesiastical  antiquarians.  That 
he  believed  Christianity  to  be  essentially  Republican  and 
not  Sacerdotal  in  its  character  is  evident  from  the  opening 
paragraph  of  his  celebrated  essay,  ” The  Christian  Min- 
istry.” 

“ The  kingdom  of  Christ,”  says  this  great  scholar,  “not 
being  a kingdom  of  this  world,  is  not  limited  by  the  re- 
strictions which  fetter  other  societies,  political  or  religious. 
It  is  in  the  fullest  sense  free,  comprehensive,  universal.  It 
displays  this  character,  not  only  in  the  acceptance  of  all 
comers  who  seek  admission,  irrespective  of  race  or  caste  or 
sex,  but  also  in  the  instruction  and  treatment  of  those 
who  are  already  its  members.  It  has  no  sacred  days  or 
seasons,  no  special  sanctuaries,  because  every  time  and 
every  place  alike  are  holy.  Above  all,  it  has  no  Sacerdotal 
system.  It  interposes  no  sacrificial  tribe  or  class  between 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


331 


God  and  man,  by  whose  intervention  alone  God  is  recon- 
ciled and  man  forgiven.  Each  individual  member  holds 
personal  communion  with  the  Divine  Head.  To  Him 
immediately  he  is  responsible,  and  from  Him  directly  he 
obtains  pardon  and  draws  strength.” 

It  is  true  that  Bishop  Lightfoot,  after  making  these 
sweeping  statements,  declared  in  effect  that  they  were 
idealistic,  and  that  in  practical  life  the  necessity  of  some 
modifications  of  them  must  be  recognized.  But  it  is 
equally  true  that  he  contends  that  the  taking  of  idealism 
out  of  the  Gospel  of  the  God-Man  would  be  to  rob  it 
of  its  most  valuable  practical  content.  No  people  can 
advance  towards  the  mountain  peaks  of  civilization  ex- 
cept by  making  the  difficult  ascent  by  the  way  of  idealism. 
If  it  be  contended  that  practicalism,  or  utilitarianism  is  one 
of  the  most  striking  characteristics  of  our  age,  I reply  that 
idealism  is  at  once  the  basis  and  goal  of  all  true  practical- 
ism. 

The  great  Bishop  of  Durham  realized  this  and  so,  after 
making  such  modifications  of  his  thesis  as  the  interests  of 
utilitarianism  required,  he  reiterated  its  Republican  ideal- 
ism in  the  boldest  and  strongest  terms. 

This,  then,  he  wrote,  ” is  the  Christian  ideal ; a holy 
season  extending  the  whole  year  round — a temple  confined 
only  by  the  limits  of  the  habitable  world — a priesthood 
co-extensive  with  the  human  race.” 

Elsewhere  in  his  epoch-making  essay  in  support  of  this 
thesis,  Bishop  Lightfoot  says  many  such  things  as  these: 

**  The  faculty  of  governing  not  less  than  the  utterance 


333  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

of  prophecy,  the  gift  of  healing  not  less  than  the  gift  of 
tongues,  is  an  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  on 
the  other  hand,  in  both  alike  there  is  an  entire  silence  about 
priestly  functions ; for  the  most  exalted  office  in  the  Church, 
the  highest  gift  of  the  Spirit,  conveyed  no  Sacerdotal 
right  which  was  not  enjoyed  by  the  humblest  member 
of  the  Christian  community.” 

“ The  Episcopate  was  formed,  not  out  of  the  apostolic 
order  by  localization,  but  out  of  the  presbyterial  by  ele- 
vation; and  the  title,  which  originally  was  common  to  all, 
came  at  length  to  be  appropriated  to  the  chief  among 
them.” 


V. 

One  of  the  most  brilliant  among  the  expert  authorities 
in  the  field  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities  is  the  German 
scholar  and  author,  Paul  Wernle,  Professor  Extraordi- 
nary of  Modern  Church  History  in  the  University  of 
Basel.  He  occupies  about  the  same  place,  as  a writer 
in  support  of  the  evolutionary  theory  respecting  the  origin 
of  the  Christian  church  and  institutions,  as  was  occupied 
by  the  scintillating  George  John  Romanes,  as  a writer  in 
support  of  the  evolutionary  theory  respecting  the  origin 
of  the  animal  organism,  including  that  of  man.  In  Chap- 
ter ix.  Volume  I,  of  his  truly  wonderful  work,  entitled, 
“ The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,”  Professor  Wernle,  un- 
der the  heading,  “ The  Development  of  the  Church,” 


says: 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


333 


“ Even  in  Jesus’  lifetime  there  was  a Christian  fellow- 
ship in  the  ideal  sense  of  the  word,  the  number  of  all  those 
who  recognized  Him  as  the  Lord,  as  their  Head,  and 
kept  His  commandments  in  their  daily  life.  But  there  was 
no  coherence,  no  organization.  These  followed  only  after 
Jesus’  death,  under  the  impression  produced  by  the  ap- 
pearances and  under  the  guidance  of  the  Apostles.  We 
cannot  fix  any  exact  date,  but  we  may  look  upon  the  re- 
turn of  the  disciples  to  Jerusalem  in  expectation  of  the 
Second  Advent  of  Jesus  in  the  place  where  He  died  as 
the  decisive  occurrence. 

“ The  Christian  church  is  the  child  of  enthusiasm. 
The  less  likely  we  are  to  imagine  this  as  we  look  at  the 
Church  to-day,  the  greater  the  Importance  of  reminding 
ourselves  of  this  fact.  The  Church  originated  in  a hero 
worship — theologians  call  it  faith — the  truest  and  the 
purest  that  has  ever  been.  It  united  all  the  worshippers 
indissolubly  together  and  created  the  new  forms  quite  of 
itself.  They  were  the  tokens  of  the  same  love.  Jesus 
Himself  and  none  other  was  the  center  of  the  new  com- 
munity, present  in  the  veneration,  the  love,  the  enthusiasm, 
the  faith  of  His  disciples.  The  watchword  of  the  breth- 
ren in  its  simplest  form  was  just  this:  Jesus  is  the  Lord — 
with  Him  through  life  or  death  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven; 
without  Him  we  are  lost.  All  the  feelings  of  love  and 
reverence  for  the  nation,  for  the  family,  for  friends,  cher- 
ished in  each  individual  soul,  were  now  uprooted  and 
transferred  to  Jesus  and  His  followers.  The  saying  of 


334  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

Jesus,  ‘ He  that  is  not  with  Me  is  against  Me,’  was  now 
fulfilled  in  all  its  practical  consequences. 

“ All  manifestations  of  anything  extraordinary  were 
reckoned  the  surest  sign  of  a disciple;  above  all  else  the 
speaking  with  tongues.  The  impression  made  by  the 
story  of  what  Jesus  did  and  of  His  appearance  was  so 
great  that  it  often  happened  that  not  only  believing  disci- 
ples but  strangers  and  newcomers  who  were  present  fell 
into  an  ecstatic  condition  as  they  listened — an  indubitable 
sign  that  they  were  brethren,  as  God  had  vouchsafed  the 
Spirit  unto  them. 

“ All  this  enthusiasm  was  crowned  by  the  heroism  of 
the  martyrs.  There  is  an  early  Christian  hymn; 

‘ Let  them  take  our  life. 

Goods,  honour,  child  and  wife ; 

Let  all  these  go. 

Yet  is  the  gain  not  theirs; 

The  kingdom  still  is  ours.’ 

“ These  simple  fishermen  and  artisans  of  Galilee  sur- 
rendered their  all,  even  their  lives,  and  with  a glad  cour- 
age, that  shrank  not  from  death  itself,  set  the  seal  upon 
their  discipleship  of  Jesus.  They  translated  Jesus’  words 
into  deeds  and  accounted  death  for  nought.  The  first 
community  of  believers  was  welded  together  by  the  blood 
of  the  martyrs  far  more  than  by  the  speaking  with  tongues. 
But  this  was  all  the  organization  that  existed  thus  far. 
He  that  spoke  with  tongues  of  Jesus,  he  that  for  His 
sake  gave  all  his  belongings  to  the  poor  and  died  for  Him, 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


335 


was  His  disciple;  of  that  there  can  be  no  doubt.  No  outer 
sign  was  necessary. 

“In  the  first  period  of  its  development  Christianity  ex- 
isted as  a sect  or  heresy.  The  metamorphosis  from  sect 
into  Church  was  a very  gradual  process.  Step  by  step 
the  Christian  sect  separated  itself  from  the  Jewish  church. 
By  slow  degrees  it  emerged  from  its  obscurity  into  pub- 
licity. But  it  was  only  in  the  reign  of  Constantine  that 
the  transformation  was  completed.  At  first  it  was  a sect, 
and  nothing  but  a sect.  No  one  thought  of  leaving  the 
Jewish  church.  All  shared  in  the  public  worship  of  the 
Church  and  were  subject  to  the  public  discipline.  But  the 
community  lived  its  own  life  hidden  from  the  public  gaze. 
The  earliest  services  of  the  Christian  church  were  secret 
conventicles,  meetings  in  the  house  of  a friend  with  closed 
doors. 

“ Their  life  as  sectaries  imparted  a sectarian  character 
to  the  outer  forms  current  among  the  brotherhood.  Every 
one  free  from  suspicion  was,  it  is  true,  allowed  ready  ac- 
cess to  the  meeting-place  of  the  brethren.  But  admission 
to  the  brotherhood  itself  was  only  granted  after  the  ob- 
servance of  due  formalities.  This  was  the  place  occupied 
by  baptism.  Baptism  was  no  original  Christian  institution, 
but  was  borrowed  from  the  disciples  of  John  with  one 
addition.  By  the  utterance  of  the  name  of  Jesus,  a Chris- 
tian character  was  imparted  to  the  rite.  We  have  no 
tradition  as  to  the  use  of  baptism  in  the  earliest  times. 

“ As  yet  no  instruction  preceded  baptism.  It  was  not 
necessary.  The  confession  of  faith  in  the  Messiah  was 


336  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

SO  simple.  But  as  a rule  adults  only  were  baptized.  Had 
not  Jesus  promised  children  the  kingdom  of  God  without 
laying  down  any  further  condition?  The  baptized  now 
shared  in  the  meals  of  the  brethren.  The  chief  meal  was 
always,  or  at  least  frequently,  connected  with  the  repeti- 
tion of  a portion  of  the  account  of  the  Last  Supper. 

“ The  Apostles,  prophets  and  teachers,  secured  a cer- 
tain amount  of  connection  between  the  scattered  congre- 
gations by  their  constant  journeys  from  the  one  to  the 
other.  Wherever  they  appeared  they  stood  in  God’s 
stead.  They  conveyed  the  collections  to  their  right  des- 
tination, they  fostered  the  brotherly  love  both  of  indi- 
viduals and  of  Churches  for  each  other,  but  they  were  al- 
ways reckoned  as  the  servants  of  the  community,  not  as 
its  masters. 

“ The  foundation  of  the  sect,  however,  brings  about 
the  first  great  change  in  the  new  religion.  It  can  be 
traced  in  a certain  increasing  rigidity  both  without,  where 
it  assumes  the  shape  of  exclusiveness,  and  within,  where 
it  becomes  legality.  Between  the  brethren  and  those  that 
are  without,  an  impassable  barrier  has  been  set  up  by  the 
institution  of  baptism  and  the  profession  of  faith  in  the 
Messiah. 

“ The  Lord’s  Supper  was  celebrated  with  a scrupulous 
frequency,  and  finally  exalted  into  a Sacrament  founded 
by  Jesus  Himself.  Perhaps,  too,  the  example  of  Jesus  le- 
galized the  idea  of  the  reception  into  the  Church  by  bap- 
tism. In  the  same  way  faith  in  the  Messiah  comes  to  be 
claimed  as  a dogma  which  must  be  believed.  It  is  no 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


337 


longer  self-understood.  In  the  long  run,  faith  in  an 
absent  person  can  only  be  maintained  by  legal  forms. 
Thus,  then,  this  development  of  the  sect  implies  at  the 
same  time  a diminution  of  the  first  freshness,  freedom,  and 
originality,  a gradual  increase  of  that  mere  mechanical 
copying  which  belongs  to  the  essence  of  a Church,  The 
whole  frame  of  mind  altered.  Mourning  their  Master, 
they  began  to  fast  again  like  the  Pharisees  and  the  dis- 
ciples of  John. 

“ And  yet  this  sect,  sharply  defined  against  the  world, 
and  with  the  Gospel  for  law,  was  the  necessary  vessel  for 
the  eternal  treasure  of  redemption  in  Jesus.  This  was  the 
first  body  which  the  soul  of  Jesus  took  unto  itself  in  order 
thence  to  begin  the_  long  journey  out  from  these  narrow 
borders  into  the  wide  world.  All  reverence  to  the  Divine 
in  this  brotherhood.  Here  within  this  small  compass  lies 
hidden  the  life  that  is  destined  to  give  the  world  comfort 
and  to  inspire  it  with  strength.  These  rude  but  strong 
characters,  at  enmity  with  the  world,  their  expectant  gaze 
turned  towards  the  eternal  mansions,  are  called  to  be  the 
conquerors  of  the  world.” 


VI. 

Professor  Adolph  Harnack,  Rector  of  the  University 
of  Berlin,  is  by  common  consent  the  greatest  all  round 
authority  among  living  historians.  His  special  field  is  the 


338 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


history  of  Christian  dogma.  I quote  a short  passage 
from  an  article  of  his  in  the  Ninth  Edition  of  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica,  because  the  work  is  so  easily  accessi- 
ble. In  that  article  Professor  Harnack  says: 

“ In  so  far  as  each  local  Church  embraced  a system  of 
higher  and  lower  functions,  each  was  indeed  a little  world 
to  itself.  It  possessed  a governing  body  (stewards)  for 
the  care  of  the  poor,  for  worship,  for  correspondence — in  a 
word,  for  its  ‘ economy.’  In  the  widest  sense  of  the  word, 
the  congregation  needed  controlling  officials.  These  were 
the  Bishops  and  the  Deacons — the  former  for  higher,  the 
latter  for  inferior  services ; they  owed  their  official  position 
to  the  congregation,  and  in  the  nature  of  their  offices 
there  was,  strictly  speaking,  nothing  wjiich  could  have  laid 
the  foundation  of  any  special  rank  or  exaltation.” 


VIL 

These  citations  from  the  great  experts  in  the  science 
of  historical  criticism  to  whom  I appeal  in  support  of  the 
theory  of  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  church 
and  ministry  upon  which  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  is  based  have  already  exceeded  the  space  reserved 
for  them.  They  cannot  be  concluded,  however,  without 
a word  from  Professor  Hatch’s  celebrated  Bampton  Lec- 
tures, “ The  Organization  of  the  Early  Christian 
Church,”  a work  to  which  Harnack  attached  such  prime 
importance  that  he  published  a German  edition  of  it  in  his 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


339 


own  translation  with  elaborate  notes.  These  lectures 
appeared  in  1881,  some  fifteen  years  after  Bishop  Light- 
foot’s  essay,  “ The  Christian  Ministry.”  Though  they 
constitute  an  entirely  independent  investigation  of  great 
scholastic  originality  and  literary  merit,  yet  they  cover 
practically  the  same  ground  that  is  covered  by  the  essay. 
The  two  great  works  should  be  read  together  in  the  order 
of  their  publication,  for  the  Professor’s  lectures  throw  a 
flood  of  light  on  the  Bishop’s  essay  and  vice  versa.  Pro- 
fessor Hatch  says : 

” The  Episcopate  grew  by  the  force  of  circumstances,  in 
the  order  of  Providence,  to  satisfy  a felt  need.  It  is  per- 
tinent to  add  that  this  view  as  to  the  chief  cause  which 
operated  to  produce  it  has  not  the  merit  or  demerit  of 
novelty.  Although  the  view  must  rest  upon  its  own  inher- 
ent probability  as  a complete  explanation  of  the  known 
facts  of  the  case,  it  has  the  support  of  the  earliest  and 
greatest  of  ecclesiastical  antiquaries.  St.  Jerome,  arguing 
against  the  growing  tendency  to  exalt  the  Diaconate  at  the 
expense  of  the  Presbyterate,  maintains  that  the  Churches 
were  originally  governed  by  a plurality  of  Presbyters, 
but  that  in  course  of  time  one  was  elected  to  preside  over 
the  rest  as  a remedy  against  division,  lest  different  Presby- 
ters, having  different  views  of  doctrine,  should,  by  each 
of  them  drawing  a portion  of  the  community  to  himself, 
cause  divisions  in  it. 

“ The  earliest  theory  of  the  relation  of  the  Bishop  to 
the  community  was,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that  the 
Bishop  stood  in  the  place  of  the  unseen  Lord,  entrusted 


340 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


with  the  oversight  of  his  Master’s  household  until  He 
should  return  from  that  far  country  into  which  He  had 
gone.  This  view  is  found  in  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  in  the 
Clementines,  and  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  In  none 
of  these  cases  is  there  any  ambiguity  of  expression.  The 
Bishop  is  in  the  place  of  God,  or  of  Christ ; the  Presbyters 
are  in  the  place  of  the  Apostles.  But  gradually  another 
theory  interweaves  itself  with  this  and  ultimately  takes 
its  place.  It  was  a not  unnatural  inference  from  the  belief 
that  the  Bishop  was  the  custodian  and  conservator  of  apos- 
tolic teaching  that  he,  rather  than  the  Presbyters,  took 
the  Apostles’  place.  The  Bishops  had  succeeded  the 
Apostles  in  the  presidency  of  the  several  Churches  by  what 
Firmilian  calls  an  ordinatic  vicaria — one  officer  being  ap- 
pointed in  another’s  place,  as  governor  succeeded  governor 
in  a Roman  province,  or  as  chancellor  succeeds  chancellor 
in  our  own  university.  When  discipline  as  well  as  doc- 
trine found  its  center  in  the  Bishops,  it  began  to  be  argued 
that  they  had  succeeded  not  only  to  the  seats  which  the 
Apostles  had  filled,  but  also  to  the  powers  which  the 
Apostles  possessed.  It  began  to  be  urged  that  the 
powers,  especially  the  power  of  ‘ binding  and  loosing,’ 
which  our  Lord  had  conferred  on  the  Apostles,  were  given 
to  them  personally  or  as  constituting  the  Church  of  the 
time,  but  in  a representative  capacity  as  the  first  members 
of  a long  line  of  Church  officers.  Against  an  early  asser- 
tion of  this  view,  Tertullian  raised  a vigorous  protest;  nor 
did  the  view  win  its  way  to  general  acceptance  until  the 
time  of  the  great  Latin  theologians  of  the  fifth  century. 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


341 


It  was  a still  later  development  of  this  view  to  maintain 
that  the  Bishops  had  also  succeeded  to  the  power  of  the 
Apostles  in  the  conferring  of  spiritual  gifts,  and  that 
through  them,  and  through  them  exclusively,  did  it  please 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  enter  into  the  souls  either  of  individual 
Christians  in  baptism,  or  of  Church  officers  at  ordination. 
This  latest  development,  which  has  frequently  been  con- 
founded with  the  earlier  view,  is  found  in  its  completest 
form  on  the  threshold  of  the  middle  ages;  it  was  received 
as  a doctrine  by  the  Council  of  Paris  in  A.  D.  829;  it 
forms  the  basis  of  several  arguments  in  the  pseudo-Isido- 
rian  decretals;  it  passed  at  length  into  the  ordinals;  and 
it  still  survives. 

“ If  we  gather  together  all  the  words  which,  during  the 
first  two  centuries,  are  used  as  collective  terms  for  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Christian  communities,  we  find  that  they  agree 
in  con-noting  primarily  the  idea  of  presidency  or  leader- 
ship. ^ 

“ If  we  further  gather  together  the  abstract  terms  which 
are  used,  during  the  same  period,  for  ecclesiastical  office 
we  find  that,  with  the  exception  of  diakonia,  they  exhibit 
the  same  phenomenon. 

“ If,  therefore,  the  primitive  Christian  communities 
were  institutions  which  had  entirely  passed  away,  and  we 
were  examining  their  constitutions  as  a piece  of  ancient 
history,  in  the  same  manner  as  we  examined  the  consti- 
tution of  Athens  or  of  Sparta,  we  should  be  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  relation  between  the  officers  and  the 


342  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

rest  of  the  community  was  primarily  a relation  of  priority 
of  order. 

“ If  we  extend  the  sphere  of  our  induction  and  look  at 
not  only  the  collective  but  also  the  particular  terms  for 
Church  officers  in  the  light  of  their  contemporary  use,  we 
further  find  that  none  of  them  were  peculiar  to  the  Chris- 
tian communities  but  that  they  were  all  common  to  them 
with  contemporary  organizations.  Some  of  them  were 
in  use  in  the  imperial  administration,  some  of  them  in  mu- 
nicipal corporations,  some  of  them  in  voluntary  associa- 
tions. 

“ If,  therefore,  we  could  exclude  all  ideas  except  those 
which  appear  simply  upon  the  evidence,  and  deal  with 
the  facts  of  Christian  organization  as  we  should  deal 
with  the  facts  of  any  other  organization,  we  should  un- 
doubtedly be  led  to  the  conclusion  that  not  only  the  re- 
lation between  Church  officers  and  the  rest  of  the  com- 
munity, was  that  of  presidency  or  leadership,  but  that 
also  the  presidency  or  leadership  was  the  same  in  kind  as 
that  of  contemporary  non-Christian  societies. 

“The  question  before  us  may  be  thus  stated:  A pre- 
sumption having  been  raised  by  the  terms  which  were  in 
use  for  Church  office  that  the  conception  of  such 
office  was  one  of  presidency  or  leadership,  does  the  exist- 
ing evidence  warrant  an  inference  that  Church  officers 
were  regarded  as  possessing  other  powers  than  those  which 
naturally  attach  to  presidents  and  leaders  of  a community? 

“ It  will  be  convenient  to  take  in  detail  the  several 
functions  which  in  later  times  have  been  regarded  as  the 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


343 


special  and  peculiar  functions  of  Church  officers,  and 
to  inquire  how  far  they  were  regarded  as  special  and  pe- 
culiar functions  in  the  first  two  centuries. 

“ In  regard  to  the  function  of  teaching  or  preaching, 
it  is  clear  from  both  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  St. 
Paul’s  Epistles  that  ‘ liberty  of  prophesying  ’ prevailed  in 
the  apostolic  age.  It  is  equally  clear  that  liberty  of 
prophesying  existed  after  the  apostolic  age.  The 
Apostolic  Constitutions  expressly  contemplate  the  exist- 
ence of  preaching  by  laymen : ‘ even  if  a teacher  be  a 
layman,  still  if  he  be  skilled  in  the  work  and  reverent 
in  habit,  let  him  teach;  for  the  Scripture  says  they  shall 
be  all  taught  of  God.’  ” 

In  the  next  paragraph  Professor  Hatch  shows  that  the 
administration  of  Baptism  by  laymen  was  held  to  be 
valid.  In  regard  to  the  Eucharist,  he  says:  “The  only 
explicit  evidence  is  that  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles.’’  And 
he  then  proceeds  to  show  from  these  epistles  that  it  was 
the  custom  for  laymen,  in  the  absence  of  a Church  officer, 
to  celebrate  the  Eucharist  and  that  such  celebrations  were 
by  the  people,  held  to  be  valid. 

The  author  then  shows  that  the  power  of  disci- 
pline even  to  the  extent  of  removing  its  own  officers 
was  exercised  by  the  congregation.  And  concludes  as 
follows : 

“ Whether  therefore  we  look  at  Preaching,  at  Baptism, 
at  the  Eucharist,  or  at  Discipline,  it  seems  probable  that 
the  officers  were  not  conceived  as  having,  as  such,  ex- 
clusive powers.  In  other  words,  the  existing  evidence 


344  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

in  regard  to  the  functions  of  Church  officers  so  far  from 
establishing,  tends  to  disprove  the  existence  of  any  con- 
ception of  the  nature  of  their  office,  other  than  that  which 
is  gathered  from  the  terms  which  were  in  use  to  designate 
such  office.  It  supports  the  hypothesis  that  they  existed 
in  the  Christian  societies,  as  those  who  bore  the  same  names 
existed  in  secular  societies,  for  the  general  superintend- 
ence of  the  community  and  the  general  control  of  its 
affairs,  that  all  things  might  be  done  decently  and  in 
order.” 

It  is  sometimes  asserted  that  the  general  trend  of  mod- 
ern scholarship  has  been  of  late  years  away  from  Bishop 
Lightfoot’s  position  towards  that  of  the  Sacerdotalists  or 
Romanizers.  In  reply  to  this  representation  it  may  be  ob- 
served that  among  all  those  who  have  written  from  first 
hand  knowledge  since  his  time.  Professors  Harnack  and 
Ramsay  are  by  common  consent  the  greatest  authorities. 
They  not  only  occupy  Bishop  Lightfoot’s  position,  but 
have  fortified  it  with  the  published  results  of  their  inde- 
pendent investigations,  until  the  assertion  may  be  made, 
in  the  greatest  confidence,  that  it  will  forever  remain  se- 
cure against  all  attacks  of  Sacerdotalists. 

But,  it  will  be  asked.  Though  there  may  be  no  recog- 
nized historical  basis,  what  about  that  furnished  by  Catho- 
lic tradition?  My  reply  is  that  our  interest  is  in  historical 
facts,  not  in  traditional  assumptions.  Bishop  Gore,  upon 
whom  Sacerdotalists  rely  so  confidently,  does  indeed 
make  a wonderful  showing  as  to  the  support  given  to 


THE  HISTORICAL  CRITICS. 


345 


Sacerdotalism  from  A.  D.  150  down  to  the  Reformation. 
But  now-a-days  people  do  not  go  to  tradition,  when  they 
may  turn  to  reliable  documents;  or  grope  around  in 
dark  tunnels  with  the  dim  and  flickering  light  afforded 
by  the  candle  of  tradition,  when  they  may  as  well  have 
the  much  brighter  and  more  certain  illumination  of  his- 
torical facts. 

If  we  take  our  stand  on  the  facts  and  logical  deductions 
of  ecclesiastical  history,  it  will  appear  that  the  Diocesan 
or  Historic  Episcopate  possesses  nothing  which  was  not 
originally  derived  from  the  Congregational  Episcopate. 
As  for  the  Congregational  Episcopate,  it  will  be  seen 
that  it  possesses  nothing  which  was  not  originally  derived 
from  the  Presbyterate.  And  as  to  the  Presbyterate, 
it  will  be  evident  that  originally  it  was  very  slightly  if  at 
all  differentiated  from  that  Ministry  which  is  co-exten- 
sive  with  organic  Christianity,  the  ordination  to  which  is 
baptism;  so  that  it  owed  its  existence  wholly  to  the  recog- 
nition by  the  people  of  natural  spiritual  gifts. 

Let  me  most  respectfully  but  earnestly  advise  those 
who  are  still  appealing  to  tradition  to  read  what  even 
Roman  modernists  are  saying.  Here  is  a sample  passage 
from  ’the  pen  of  one  of  them : 

“ The  traditional  apologists  have  been  wont  to  view 
the  Church  as  an  institution  leading  a life  apart  from 
the  surrounding  social  and  political  world,  growing  and 
shaping  itself  according  to  peculiar  laws  of  development, 
whose  largely  miraculous  character  forbids  their  verifica- 
tion. This  ancient  conception  of  the  Church  as  the  work 


346 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


of  the  Logos,  and  as  a domain  closed  to  the  influence 
of  those  which  govern  the  growth  of  human  socie- 
ties, having  once  obtained  footing  in  the  great  historical 
construction  of  Eusebius,  has  for  long  ages  been  the 
postulate  of  all  Catholic  ecclesiastical  history. 

“ A prepossession  of  this  kind,  joined  with  the  notion 
of  revelation  as  being,  before  all,  a communication  of  un- 
changeable abstract  propositions  led  to  another  assump- 
tion, namely,  that  the  dogmatic  affirmations,  which  gradu- 
ally became  part  of  the  inherited  intellectual  explanation 
of  faith,  as  well  as  the  external  forms  progressively  as- 
sumed by  the  ecclesiastical  organization,  existed,  at  least 
implicitly,  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  preaching  of 
Jesus,  in  the  faith  of  the  first  Christians,  and  in  the  teaching 
of  the  Fathers. 

“ Historical  criticism  has  purged  our  minds  inexorably 
of  these  prepossessions. 

“ This  Church  which  lay  beyond  the  horizon  of  Christ’s 
outlook,  bounded  by  the  Parousia,  grew  up  naturally 
among  His  followers  and  quickly  passed  from  the  charis- 
matic hierarchy  of  His  first  days,  arranged  according  to 
personal  graces  and  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  to  the  official  and 
monarchic  hierarchy  arranged  according  to  measures  of 
jurisdiction  and  sacramental  power. 

“ Finally,  as  regards  the  organization  of  the  Chris- 
tian communities,  they  had  come  by  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century  to  adopt  the  monarchic  Episcopate  as  the 
result  of  taking  over  certain  offices  and  titles,  partly  from 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


347 


the  synagogue,  partly  from  the  Hellenistic  confraternities 
and  societies. 


“ The  Church  should  feel  a sort  of  nostalgia,  a yearn- 


ing towards  her  own  past,  in  regard  to  these,  as  yet  un- 
consciously religious  currents  of  thought  and  sentiment 
which  are  the  life-blood  of  the  rising  democracy.  She 
should  find  some  way  of  mingling  with  this  world-move- 
ment in  order  to  ensure  its  true  success  by  means  of  the 
strength  of  her  restraints  and  the  stimulus  of  her  moral 
authority,  which  alone  can  bring  home  the  lessons  of  self- 
denial  and  altruism  to  the  multitudes.  She  should  frankly 
recognize  that  democracy  paves  the  way  to  what  is  pre- 
cisely the  highest  expression  of  her  Catholicism.  When 
she  does  so,  then  democracy  will  begin  to  yearn  after  the 
Church  which  continues  that  Gospel-message  wherein 
democracy  finds  its  own  remote  but  authentic  origin.” 
The  Programme  of  Modernism  and  the  Encyclical  of 


Pius  X,  pp.  74,  81,  84,  128. 


IV. 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 

I. 

HE  SACRAMENTS  have  always  been  the  storm 


center  of  the  controversy  that  has  raged  between 


Sacerdotal  Catholics  and  Republican  Protestants. 
Drs.  Gore,  Hall  and  Moberly  cannot  be  fully  answered. 


348 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


nor  can  the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  be  defended 
without  a justification  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  concerning 
the  Sacraments. 

There  are  two  points  from  which  a Sacrament  may  and 
should  be  viewed.  From  one  of  them  it  is  seen  that  it  has 
an  effect  upon  the  grace  with  which  it  is  concerned,  an 
effect  exactly  analogous  to  that  of  a sermon  which  has 
in  view  the  stirring  up  of  the  same  grace.  A Sacrament 
is  then  a dramatized  sermon.  From  the  other  view  point, 
it  is  seen  that  a Sacrament  is  a dramatized  prayer  to  God 
for  the  promotion  of  the  grace  with  which  the  Sacrament 
is  concerned. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  supernatural  in  the  Sacra- 
ments it  is  important  to  note  that  the  supernatural  is  never 
the  unnatural.  The  Sacerdotal  theory  of  Sacramental 
grace  seems  to  me  to  invest  the  Sacraments  and  their  ad- 
ministrators with  a supernaturalness  which  is  unnatural, 
if  not  superstitious. 

I do  not  deny  the  supernatural  in  the  Sacraments;  but 
insist  upon  a supernaturalness  which  is  entirely  congruous 
with  the  natural,  and  which  is  free  from  every  vestige  of 
Sacerdotal  superstition. 

Christian  sacraments  are  supernatural  but  not  more 
so  than  Christian  sermons  or  prayers.  The  administrator 
of  a Sacrament  performs  no  more  of  a miracle  than  that 
which  is  performed  by  one  who  effectively  preaches  or 
prays. 

In  my  efforts  to  arrive  at  the  truth  respecting  Christian 
doctrine,  I am,  of  late  years,  more  and  more,  proceed- 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


349 


ing  upon  the  assumption  that  there  are  very  few  basic 
principles  to  be  reckoned  with.  God  has  made  much  out 
of  little.  The  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  runs  all 
through  things  as  we  know  them.  I do  not  presume  to 
speak  for  other  Protestants,  but  for  myself  I want  to  re- 
iterate that,  according  to  my  conviction,  the  sacramental 
principle  is  the  same  as  the  preaching  principle,  and  also 
that  the  preaching  is  identical  with  the  prayer  principle, 
If  I am  right  in  this  conclusion,  a Sacrament  is  at  once 
both  a sermon  and  a prayer  dramatized.  But  preaching 
and  praying  in  any  form  cannot,  on  Gospel  grounds,  be 
limited  to  a Sacerdotal,  Priestly,  Ministerial,  Caste. 

I would  not  be  understood  as  placing  the  Sacraments  on 
the  same  level  with  ordinary  sermons  or  prayers.  A Sac- 
rament may  be  more  effective  than  a sermon  or  a prayer 
in  inspiring  good  desires,  determinations  and  efforts:  not, 
however,  as  Sacerdotalists  teach,  because  of  any  super- 
naturalness in  it  or  its  administrator,  but  because  of  the 
same  underlying  reason  that  the  compositions  of  Shake- 
speare are  more  effective  when  dramatized  than  when 
simply  read  or  recited. 

The  dramatic  principle  explains  the  almost  universal 
prevalence  of  Baptism  by  immersion  in  primitive  times  and 
its  wide  persistence  to  our  own  day.  Baptism  by  immer- 
sion is  much  more  of  a drama  than  is  Baptism  by  sprink- 
ling or  pouring.  The  Lord’s  Supper  was  often  dramatized 
in  the  primitive  Church.  Christ  was  impersonated  by  the 
chairman  or  president  of  the  college  of  Presbyters, 
which  college,  in  places  where  this  was  done,  usually 


350 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


numbered  thirteen.  The  other  twelve  Presbyters  imper- 
sonated the  Apostles. 

If  we  could  go  deep  enough  we  would,  I think,  see 
the  principle  of  preaching  and  the  principle  of  praying 
to  be  one  and  the  same  principle  in  different  relationships. 
Even  on  the  surface  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  if  there  be 
two  principles  they  run  quite  parallel  much  of  the  way. 

The  indispensable  importance  of  the  principle  of 
preaching  and  praying  to  the  Sacraments  appears  from  our 
own  incomparable  Services  for  the  administration  of  the 
two  great  Sacraments  and  the  several  sacramental  ordi- 
nances. If  the  elements  of  praying  and  preaching  were 
eliminated  from  them,  there  would  be  almost  nothing  left. 
This  is  especially  true  of  the  element  of  prayer  which  all 
admit  to  be  a universal,  not  alone  a Priestly,  prerogative. 
Or,  to  state  the  same  truth  in  another  form,  prayer  proves 
the  universality  of  the  Christian  priesthood.  According 
to  the  true  Protestant  doctrine,  as  I understand  it,  every 
Christian  is  actually  and  every  human  being  is  potentially 
a Priest. 

Of  course  if  the  Sacerdotal  theory  were  true,  the  entire 
elimination  of  the  preaching  and  prayer  elements  from  the 
offices  for  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments  would 
leave  to  them  all  that  is  absolutely  essential.  On  this 
theory,  the  Priestly  miracle-working  declaration  on  behalf 
of  Christ,  upon  which,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  is  supposed  to  depend  the  conversion  of  the 
elements  of  bread  and  wine  into  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  is  the  essential  thing.  According  to  this  theory. 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


351 


we  would  also  have  as  the  result  of  this  declaration,  in 
some  real  and  literal  sense,  the  miracle  of  the  repetition 
of  the  Sacrifice  on  the  Cross;  and  furthermore,  a repe- 
tition or  extension  of  the  miracle  of  the  Incarnation. 

I think  that  to  admit  that  a Sacrament  conveys  grace 
of  essentially  another  kind,  or  in  essentially  another  way 
than  that  which  is  conveyed  by  preaching  and  praying, 
is  the  admission  of  the  Sacerdotal  principle  as  held  by 
the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches. 

This  contention  is  not  noval,  for  our  Church  teaches 
that,  under  certain  conditions,  the  benefits  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper  may  be  received  by  any  Christian  as  the  re- 
sult of  his  own  prayer,  quite  as  really  and  effectively  as 
if  the  Sacrament  were  administered  by  one  of  our  Pres- 
byters or  Bishops. 

Dr.  C.  B.  Wilmer  in  his  excellent  pamphlet  entitled, 
“ The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Present 
Crisis,”  refers  to  a remarkable  article  by  the  Bishop  of 
Vermont  in  The  Living  Church,  for  December  4,  1909, 
on  the  Priesthood,  in  which  he  brings  out  the  true  idea 
of  the  Sacrament  as  a blessing  imparted  in  answer  to 
prayer. 


II. 

The  insistence  upon  the  “ Catholic  ” or  Sacerdotal  doc- 
trine of  Apostolic  Succession  in  connection  with  the  His- 
toric Episcopate,  in  such  a way  as  to  make  that  insti- 
tution the  seed  of  the  Church,  and  necessary  to  its  exist- 


353  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

ence  and  historical  continuity,  is  based  on  the  idea  that 
the  Christian  religion  is  supernatural  in  character;  and 
more  particularly,  upon  the  persuasion  that  this  super- 
naturalness is  manifested  through  the  Sacraments,  only 
when  they  are  administered  by  Bishops  or  Priests  who 
have  received  ordination  from  representatives  of  this  His- 
toric Episcopate. 

God  forbid  that  I should  deny  that  the  Christian  re- 
ligion is  supernatural.  I Insist,  however,  that  it  is  super- 
natural because  of  the  Incarnation,  not  because  of  its 
Ministry  or  Sacraments,  or  even  because  of  its  Scriptures. 
In  order  to  connect  the  supernatural  with  our  religion, 
there  is  no  need  of  associating  it  with  that  to  which  it  does 
not  inherently  belong.  The  Ministry  and  the  Sacra- 
ments of  the  Christian  religion  contribute  to  the  develop- 
ment in  the  Christian  of  the  supernatural  life,  but  the 
supernatural  goes  back  of  the  Ministry  for  its  origin  to  the 
Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God. 

The  Ministry  and  the  Sacraments  then  bear  a re- 
lationship to  the  development  of  the  supernatural  life  of 
a Christian,  analogous  to  the  relationship  which  is  borne 
by  the  sower  and  the  soil,  and  by  the  rain  and  the  sun- 
shine, to  the  seed  from  which  the  harvest  is  expected.  The 
ripened  harvest  is  the  result  of  a developed  supernatural 
life.  The  supernatural  is  not  in  the  sower,  or  the  soil, 
nor  yet  in  the  rain  or  the  sunshine.  The  supernatural  is 
in  the  seed.  The  supernaturalness  of  the  seed  is  life,  a 
life  which  is  capable,  in  the  case  of  each  grain,  of  yielding, 
under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  a hundred-fold. 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


353 


but  under  other  conditions  less,  some  sixty,  some  only 
thirty. 

As  the  farmer  is  necessary  because,  if  there  is  to  be  a 
harvest,  the  seed  must  be  brought  into  contact  with  the 
soil  and  be  guarded  and  cultivated,  so  the  Christian  min- 
istry is  necessary  because  men,  women  and  children,  upon 
whom  has  been  bestowed  the  supernatural  seed  of  the 
Incarnate  life,  must  be  brought  into  the  Church,  the  Gar- 
den of  the  Lord,  and  must  be  protected  and  cultivated. 
As  there  is  nothing  supernatural  about  the  farmer,  as  such, 
so  there  is  nothing  supernatural  about  a Christian  min- 
ister, as  such.  In  both  cases,  they  are  only  Providential 
agents,  by  which  a supernatural  life,  existing  quite  inde- 
pendently of  them,  is  made  to  yield  a harvest  of  its  kind. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  Christian  sacraments.  They 
are,  by  Christ’s  ordinance,  means  of  grace,  without  which 
the  Divine  life,  with  which  the  human  soul  has  been  en- 
dowed by  the  Incarnation,  can  not,  speaking  generally, 
bring  forth  a full  harvest  of  righteousness.  Their  effect 
upon  the  Christ  life  no  more  entitles  them  to  be  regarded 
as  supernatural  instrumentalities  in  the  Sacerdotal  sense 
than  the  effect  of  the  rain  and  the  sunshine  upon  vege- 
table life,  entitles  these  to  be  regarded  as  supernatural 
Instrumentalities.  Vegetable  life  is  Divine,  because  God 
made  it  so  by  the  nature  which  He  gave  it.  Human, 
spiritual  life  is  Divine,  in  an  Infinitely  higher  and  more 
personal  sense,  because  God  took  human  nature  upon 
Himself,  and  thus  supernaturallzed  it.  But  there  is  noth- 
ing extraordinarily  supernatural  about  the  Instrumentali- 


354  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

ties  which  have  to  do  with  making  the  most  of  either 
vegetable  or  human  life. 

In  a private  letter  a friend  who  looks  at  the  subject 
of  supernaturalism  in  connection  with  the  Christian  sacra- 
ments from  very  much  the  same  point  of  view  that  I 
have  taken  asks  with  much  pertinency: 

“ Why  attempt  to  limit  the  supernatural  by  saying, 
‘Lo  here,’  and  ‘Lo  there.’  Is  not  the  supernatural  every- 
where conterminous  with  the  natural?  Is  the  natural  at 
any  point  understandable  apart  from  the  supernatural? 
In  other  words,  does  nature  at  any  point  get  away  from 
God?  Of  course,  the  Christian  ministry  is  supernatural, 
but  how  supremely  absurd  to  make  its  supernaturalness  de- 
pend upon  tactual  succession.  Your  Catholic  critics  mean 
by  supernatural,  magical.  A spiritually  helpful  act  or 
word,  which  is  not  supernatural  is  to  me  inconceivable.” 

I am  convinced  that  my  friend  has  here  given  ex- 
pression to  a great  truth.  Those  who  are  of  our  way 
of  thinking  do  not  deny  that  the  benefits  received  by  the 
faithful  recipients  of  the  Christian  sacraments  are  very 
many  and  inestimably  great,  and  also  that  the  efficacy  of 
some,  if  not  all,  among  such  benefits  is  of  a highly  super- 
natural character.  Nevertheless,  we  insist  that  the  super- 
natural element  in  the  Sacraments  is,  to  speak  paradoxic- 
ally, a natural  supernaturalness;  and  that  in  this  age  of 
scientific  naturalism  which  has  succeeded  and  completely 
supplanted  the  Mediaeval  age  of  superstitious  supernatu- 
ralism there  is  simply  no  use  in  making  any  other  doctrine 
concerning  the  supernatural  in  anything  appertaining  to 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


355 


religion,  a plank  in  a platform  upon  which  it  is  hoped  to 
secure  the  organic  unification  of  Christendom. 

We  have  seen  that  the  basic  social  institution  upon 
which  the  whole  superstructure  of  civilization  rests  is 
the  family.  The  analogy  between  the  Family  and  State 
and  Church  is  so  clear  that  any  one  can  see  it,  and  so 
indisputable  that  none  will  call  it  in  question.  So  far 
as  it  concerns  the  Church,  the  great  St.  Paul  saw  this 
striking  analogy  and  Impressively  commented  upon  it. 
We  have  seen  also  that  the  family  is  a Republican  in- 
stitution, as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  is  based  upon 
the  mutual  consent  of  the  man  and  woman  who  unite  in 
marriage  to  constitute  it. 

As  the  family  is  by  common  consent  the  greatest  of 
all  institutions  which  go  to  make  the  social  realm  what 
it  is,  being  the  foundation  upon  which  the  whole  super- 
structure rests,  it  should  not  be  hard  to  gain  consent  to 
the  assertion  that  the  Sacramental  ordinance  or  ceremony 
or  rite  upon  which  its  very  existence  is  dependent  is  one 
of  the  greatest  of  Sacraments. 

And,  furthermore,  since  the  Sacrament  of  marriage 
was  the  first  to  be  instituted  and  the  State,  and  the  Church, 
and,  in  short,  everything  connected  with  the  temporal 
welfare  of  the  human  race,  ultimately  hinges  upon  it, 
this  being  absolutely  true  of  all  that  goes  to  make  for 
the  creation  and  development  of  civilization,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  if  it  is  lacking  in  unnatural  supernatural- 
ness, the  Sacerdotallst  must  be  wrong  in  attributing  such 
a supernaturalness  to  any  other  Sacrament  whatsoever. 


356  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

In  the  family,  the  husband  and  wife  are  King  and 
Queen,  Priest  and  Priestess  in  the  highest  sense  of  the 
terms,  in  a much  higher  sense  than  any  man  or  woman 
has  ever  been  King  or  Priest,  Queen  or  Priestess  in  a 
State  or  Church.  Their  coronation  to  this  kingship  and 
queenship  and  their  ordination  to  this  priesthood  and 
priestesshood  took  place  when  they  received  the  Sacra- 
ment of  marriage. 

Surely  no  one  will  claim  that  the  coronation  of  a King 
or  the  ordination  of  a Priest  means  more  to  the  civil 
or  religious  parts  of  the  social  realm,  than  does  marriage 
to  the  domestic  portion  of  that  realm,  and  all  agree  that 
the  domestic  department  of  the  social  realm  is,  so  to 
speak,  the  rock  upon  which  both  the  civil  and  religious 
realms  are  built.  Or,  to  change  the  figure,  the  domestic 
department  of  the  social  realm  is  the  soil  from  which  the 
civil  and  religious  departments  of  that  realm  grow. 

It  would  therefore  be  illogical  to  make  more  or  even 
as  much  of  a coronation  or  ordination  ceremony  as  of  the 
marriage  ceremony  or  Sacrament.  Sacerdotalists  give  to 
ordination  the  rank  of  a Sacrament.  If  they  are  right 
in  so  doing  as  I believe  they  are,  I certainly  am  right  in 
giving,  with  them,  the  same  rank  to  matrimony.  I contend 
that  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  more  can  rightly  be 
made  of  the  Sacrament  of  ordination  than  of  the  Sacra- 
ment of  marriage,  and  indeed  that  the  latter  is  the  greater 
Sacrament. 

What  does  the  Sacrament  of  marriage  do  for  its  recip- 
ients? Does  it  give  them  an  inherent  capability  corres- 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


357 


ponding  to  what  Sacerdotalists  characterize  as  the  grace 
of  ordination  which  capability  they  would  not  and  could 
not  possess  but  for  the  Sacrament?  The  Sacrament  of 
marriage  gives  to  those  receiving  it  a legal  and  religious 
ratification  and  sanction  of  the  relationship  of  husband 
and  wife  into  which  the  man  and  the  woman  of  their 
own  volition  and  by  their  own  promises  and  vows  enter. 
No  one  will  question  that  the  grace  of  the  Sacrament  of 
marriage  is  the  change  of  relationship  which  makes  the 
man  a lawful  husband  and  the  woman  a lawful  wife. 

Now,  I claim  that  apart  from  the  benefit  derived  by  the 
recipient  of  a Sacrament  as  the  result  of  intercessory 
prayer,  a change  of  relationship  is  all  the  benefit  that 
results  from  any  Sacrament,  and  that  this  benefit  is  so 
great  as  to  abundantly  justify  the  institution  and  observ- 
ance of  all  among  the  great  sacramental  ordinances. 

And,  continuing  to  speak  of  marriage,  this  change  of 
relationship  is  brought  about  and  established  as  securely, 
effectively,  and,  therefore  as  validly,  whether  the  marriage 
IS  solemnized  by  a Priest  of  the  Greek,  Roman  or  Angli- 
can Church,  or  by  a Justice  of  the  Peace.  Thus,  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  our  country,  there  is  at  least  one  Sacra- 
ment that  can  be  validly  administered  by  a layman,  even 
though  he  be  neither  Christian  nor  Jew. 

Nor  is  this  all  about  the  Sacrament  of  marriage  which 
makes  against  the  Sacerdotal  position.  Even  when  a 
Priest  or  Bishop  of  the  Church,  instead  of  an  officer 
of  the  State,  presides  at  the  Service,  he  does  not,  strictly 
speaking,  celebrate  or  administer  the  Sacrament.  In  reality 


358  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

that  is  done  by  the  man  and  woman  about  to  enter  into  the 
holy  estate  of  matrimony  for  themselves.  For  the  climax 
of  the  ceremonial  occurs  where  it  is  declared  by  the  man 
that  he  takes  the  woman  as  his  wedded  wife  and  by  the 
woman  that  she  takes  the  man  as  her  wedded  husband. 
These  words  are  the  essential  part  of  the  Sacrament.  In 
that  reciprocal  declaration  the  Sacrament  of  marriage  is 
celebrated ; for  when  it  has  been  made,  even  if  the  service 
were  then  to  abruptly  close,  the  participants  in  the  Sacra- 
ment would,  in  the  eyes  of  all  men,  be  man  and  wife. 

It  appears,  then,  that  in  the  celebration  of  the  exceed- 
ingly important  Sacrament  of  marriage,  a Sacrament 
which  constitutes  the  very  basis  of  civilization,  the  man 
acts  as  his  own  Priest  and  the  woman  as  her  own  Priest- 
ess. All  that  the  ministerial  representative  of  the  Church 
or  State  does  is  to  make  public,  official  announcement  that 
the  Sacrament  has  been  performed,  the  marriage  has  taken 
place,  and  this  announcement  is  to  the  effect  that  the  man 
and  woman  especially  concerned  have  changed  their  re- 
lationship each  to  the  other. 

Now,  in  the  Sacrament  of  marriage,  we  have,  so  to 
speak,  a mirror  in  which  may  be  seen  that  which  occurs 
in  all  Sacraments,  and  we  see  four  things : ( 1 ) that  the 
grace  of  Sacraments  is  a change  of  relationship;  (2)  that 
in  all  Sacraments  the  recipient  is  really  his  own  Priest  and 
that  without  the  exercise  of  his  Priesthood  the  Sacrament, 
so  far  as  he  is  personally  concerned,  would  be  neither 
regular  nor  valid;  (3)  that,  quite  contrary  to  the  Sacer- 
dotal theory,  the  Minister  who  presides  over  and  conducts 


GRACE  OE  sacraments. 


359 


a sacramental  ceremonial  is  just  what  the  word  Minister 
denotes,  not  the  person  upon  whose  acts  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  thing  in  hand  is  actually  dependent,  that  is  to 
say,  he  is  not  really  the  Priest,  but  only  the  Minister,  or 
acolyte,  or  server  of  the  real  Priest  who  is  the  recipient 
of  the  Sacrament,  and  upon  whose  faith  and  repentance 
the  efficacy  of  the  Sacrament  depends;  and  (4)  that  so 
far  as  the  validity  and  regularity  of  the  Sacraments  are 
concerned,  it  is  a matter  of  indifference  whether  this  Minis- 
ter has  received  ordination  to  the  official  Ministry  of  a 
Church,  or  whether  he  is  a Layman;  and  that  the  desir- 
ability of  ministerial  officialism,  and  of  confining  minis- 
terial acts  to  it  is  quite  another  question  than  the  one  with 
which  we  are  here  especially  concerned,  a question,  the 
right  answer  to  which  is  of  essentially  the  same  import, 
whether  given  by  State  or  Church,  having  to  do  with  the 
organic  unity  and  efficiency  of  the  State  or  Church,  not 
with  the  validity  or  regularity  of  Sacraments,  much  less 
with  their  efficacy. 

But  the  truth  which  I am  anxious  to  enforce  here  is, 
that  the  all  sufficient  explanation  of  the  Sacrament  of 
ordination  like  that  of  the  Sacrament  of  marriage  and 
indeed  of  all  Sacraments  is  found  in  a change  of  relation- 
ship on  the  part  of  the  person  receiving  the  Sacrament. 

A candidate  for  the  Christian  ministry,  in  any  Church, 
Ancient  or  Modern,  Sacerdotal  or  Republican,  receives 
no  new  power  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination, 
but  he  does  thereby  receive  an  official  position  which  gives 
regularity  to  the  exercise  of  his  ministerial  capabilities.  In 


360 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


the  Sacraments  of  both  marriage  and  ordination  the  grace 
is  that  of  a legal  relationship  not  the  gift  of  a character 
or  of  capabilities  which  would  not  otherwise  be  pos- 
sessed. 

Of  course  there  is  the  element  of  prayer  connected  with 
all  Sacraments  and  sacramental  ordinances  which  must 
not  be  lost  sight  of.  But  no  one  will  contend,  not  even  the 
most  advanced  Sacerdotalist,  that  all  the  prayers  or  even 
the  most  efficacious  among  them,  are  necessarily  offered 
by  the  Clergyman  at  a marriage  or  ordination.  Indeed 
prayer  can  be  regarded  as  a Priestly  act  by  tho'se  only 
who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  the  lay  Priesthood. 

Sacerdotalists  contend  that  to  regard  ordination  as  only 
a means  of  admitting  its  recipient  to  an  office  in  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  and  of  securing  to  his  official  acts  the  char- 
^acter  of  regularity,  instead  of  looking  upon  it  as  a means 
through  which  the  ordinand  is  given  some  gift  or  grace 
which  inherently  differentiates  him  from  those  who  have 
not  been  ordained,  a gift  of  grace  which  carries  with 
it  capabilities  which  could  not  be  secured  without  the 
Sacrament,  is  to  open  the  door  for  a low  view  of  sacra- 
mental rites  and  to  degrade  them  to  a formal  ceremony. 

In  raising  this  objection  to  the  Republican  or  Protestant 
doctrine  of  ordination,  Sacerdotalists  do  not  sufficiently 
bear  in  mind  the  immense  importance  of  the  giving  of  a 
license  by  constituted  authority  for  the  performance  of 
acts  of  public  concern  or  the  importance  of  the  regular 
performance  of  such  acts  under  such  license. 

Even  the  most  extreme  Sacerdotalist  would  not  main- 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


361 


tain  that  the  Sacrament  of  marriage  endows  its  partici- 
pants with  the  capability  of  obeying  God’s  command 
to  men  and  women  to  populate  the  earth.  For  it  is  the 
assumed  existence  of  this  capability  and  the  necessity  for 
the  regulation  of  its  exercise  that  accounts  for  the  insti- 
tution of  marriage.  The  Sacrament  does  not  give  to  its 
recipients  any  grace  or  power,  with  which  it  is  concerned, 
that  is  not  already  possessed,  but  it  does  give  sanction 
and  regularity  to  the  exercise  of  an  existing  grace  or 
potentiality.  The  whole  physical  universe,  as  we  know 
it,  first  took  its  form  out  of  chaos,  has  ever  since  been 
sustained,  and  is  now  being  developed  as  the  result  of  regu- 
larity. The  development,  stability  and  progress  of  every 
part  of  the  spiritual  universe  is  likewise  dependent  upon 
regularity.  Without  regularity  everything,  physical  and 
spiritual  would  go  to  pieces. 

Since,  then,  regularity  is  so  transcendently  important, 
and  since,  so  far  as  Churches  and  States  are  concerned, 
so  much  of  their  coherency,  efficiency  and  development 
depend  upon  regularity  in  its  official  ministries,  and, 
moreover,  since  regularity  in  the  Ministry  of  a Church 
hinges  upon  ordination,  why  should  Sacerdotalists  try 
to  make  this  Sacrament  out  to  be  more  than  it  is  naturally 
by  the  very  constitution  of  the  social  order  of  things? 

What  is  needed  by  the  Churches  of  each  country  is  a 
Common  Inter-Church  Ministry  which  will  be  as  regular 
to  the  organic  Christianity  of  a nation  as  the  distinctive 
Denominational  Ministries  are  in  the  Churches  to  which 
they  respectively  belong.  The  problem  of  Christian 


362  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

unity  is  the  problem  of  how  to  convert  sectarian  regularity 
into  inter-sectarian  or  national  Catholic  regularity. 

Under  present  conditions  the  Ministry  of  any  one 
Church  is  as  regular  and  the  ministrations  of  its  repre- 
sentatives are  as  valid  as  are  those  of  any  other  Church. 
The  recognition  and  admission  of  this  fact  constitutes  an 
indispensable  plank  in  the  platform  which  is  to  afford 
the  basis  for  Church  union. 


III. 

The  benefits  of  baptism  are  regeneration  and  the  for- 
giveness of  sins.  These  benefits  are  results  of  a natural 
change  of  relationship.  They  are  not  due  to  the  infusion 
of  a new  spiritual  life. 

The  grace  with  which  Baptism  is  concerned  is  spiritual 
life  and  it  is  in  the  possession  of  all  men,  women  and 
children  whether  they  are  baptized  or  not.  The  human 
race  as  a whole  is  endowed  with  spiritual  life  as  an  uni- 
versal result  of  the  Incarnation.  Baptism  changes  the 
Christ  life  of  the  recipient  of  the  Sacrament  from  a place 
outside  the  Chuch  to  one  inside  of  it.  This  change  is 
regeneration,  and  the  living  of  the  regenerated  life  in- 
volves the  comfortable  assurance  of  the  forgiveness  of 
sins. 

The  benefits  of  the  Holy  Communion  can  be  rationally 
accounted  for  only  upon  the  theory  of  change  of  relation- 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


363 


ship  not  upon  an  infusion  of  grace.  These  benefits  cannot 
be  satisfactorily  explained  to  the  rational  mind  apart  from 
social  relationship,  but  its  mission  is  not  so  much  to  create 
as  to  sustain  this  relationship.  This  Sacrament  bears  very 
much  the  relationship  to  the  Divine  life  in  man  that  food 
does  to  the  body.  It  does  not  give  life  any  more  than 
food  gives  life,  but  it  sustains  and  develops  spiritual  life 
even  as  food  sustains  and  develops  physical  life. 

What  is  it  to  feed  upon  Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
so  that  our  souls  are  strengthened  by  the  Sacrament,  as 
our  bodies  are  by  the  bread  and  wine?  It  is,  I answer, 
a real  partaking,  by  an  act  of  our  own  faith,  without 
regard  to  any  mediatorial  Ministry,  of  the  Divine  virtue 
and  power  of  Christ,  sacramentally  symbolized  and 
pledged  in  the  Lord’s  Supper.  What  the  breaking  of 
bread  is  to  the  social  life,  the  Sacrament  of  Christ’s  broken 
Body  and  shed  Blood  is,  in  an  Intensified  degree,  to  our 
religious  life. 

If  we  want  to  get  at  the  core  of  the  matter  respecting 
the  Lord’s  Supper,  we  must  do  two  things : ( 1 ) we  must 
emphasize  the  importance  of  our  direct  partaking  of 
Christ,  and  (2)  we  must  emphasize  the  necessity  of  eating 
and  drinking  together  in  the  highest  degree  of  earthly  and 
heavenly  communion.  Communion  is  the  basis  of  social 
life,  and  eating  and  drinking  together  is  generally  asso- 
ciated with  the  highest  degree  of  social  communion. 

It  is  the  direct  participation  of  and  communion  with 
the  Divine  Christ  which  raises  the  religious  table  of  our 
Heavenly  Friend  above  the  tables  of  our  human  friends. 


364  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

Both  are  communion  tables  in  the  same  sense ; but  the  com- 
munion of  the  one  is  predominantly  social,  while  the  other 
is  pre-eminently  religious.  The  communion  of  both  tables 
is  a great  source  of  refreshment  and  strength.  But  this  is 
tenfold,  yes,  a thousandfold  more  true  of  the  table  of 
our  Divine  Friend,  than  of  our  earthly  friend;  for  if  we 
have  the  right  conception  of  it,  we  realize  that  there 
we  actually  partake  of  the  real  Bread  of  Life,  even  the 
spiritual  substance  of  His  Body  and  Blood. 

But  it  will  be  asked:  If  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  is  spiritual  and  if  the 
Sacrament  has  its  supernatural  accomplishment  in 
the  heart  of  the  faithful  communicant  rather  than  in  the 
bread  and  wine,  what  is  there  in  the  Lord’s  Supper  to 
excite  to  the  thanksgiving,  adoration  and  reverence  for 
which  the  Church  provides  in  the  matchless  Liturgy  by 
which  it  is  celebrated?  I reply  that  a sufficient  incen 
tive  for  all  the  thanksgiving,  adoration  and  reverence 
which  the  human  heart  can  feel  or  tongue  and  body  can 
express,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  bread  and  wine  are 
memorials  established  by  Himself  of  the  sacrifice  and 
suffering  of  the  Son  of  God  on  our  behalf,  and  not  only 
are  they  memorials  of  this  wonderful  mercy  and  grace, 
but  further  than  this,  they  are  the  means  by  which  He  has 
chosen  to  symbolize  and  pledge  His  presence.  His  power 
and  His  virtue  in  us. 

If  we  only  sufficiently  apprehended  the  realities  that 
the  Sacramental  bread  and  wine  symbolically  represent 
to  the  world  and  are  to  the  worthy  recipient,  we  could  find 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


365 


no  words  of  thanksgiving  or  postures  of  adoration,  that 
would  sufficiently  express  the  feelings  of  our  hearts. 


IV. 

The  unification  of  Protestantism  and  indeed  of  Chris- 
tendom must  be  regarded  as  an  utter  and  altogether  hope- 
less impossibility  upon  the  Sacerdotal  theory  that  the 
Christian  ministry  is  a devolution  from  the  Lord  Jesus  and 
His  first  Apostles  and  not,  according  to  the  Republican 
theory,  an  evolution  from  the  people;  and  that  Sacramen- 
tal ordinances,  such  as  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Communion, 
Confirmation  and  Ordination,  infuse  any  grace  into  their 
recipients.  It  is  all  right  to  speak  of  the  grace  of  Sac- 
raments, if  we  mean  the  comforting  and  helpful  assurance 
of  the  possession  of  that  which  already  exists  quite  in- 
dependently of  them;  or  if  we  mean  the  strengthening 
which  comes  from  them  as  the  result  of  obedience  and 
prayer;  but  it  is  all  wrong  to  speak  of  the  grace  of  the 
Sacraments  if  we  mean  that  through  them  a Priest,  as 
a channel  or  custodian  of  God’s  grace,  conveys  any  spirit- 
ual endowment  which  is  necessary  to  salvation  that  other- 
wise could  not  be  possessed. 

I will  be  reminded  that  there  must  be  something  in 
the  sap  of  this  Republican  tree  of  the  Lord’s  planting 
which  is  most  congenial  to  Sacerdotalism  and  Imperialism, 
or  else  they  could  not  have  flourished  so  luxuriously  as 
grafts  upon  it.  But  the  phenomenon  of  different  kinds  of 


366  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

fruits  growing  upon  the  same  tree  is  not  peculiar  to  insti- 
tutional Christianity. 

A graft  from  a sour  apple  tree  will  flourish  and  bear 
fruit  of  its  kind  on  a sweet  apple  tree,  quite  as  much, 
generally  even  more,  than  if  it  had  remained  in  its  native 
tree.  The  fact  that  the  ministerial  caste  systems  of  the 
Jewish  and  Heathen  religious  trees  flourished  upon  the 
tree  of  the  Christian  religion  is  therefore  no  proof  that 
the  true  and  proper  nature  or  character  of  Christianity  is 
not  Republican  rather  than  Imperial. 

The  only  thing  that  it  can  be  held  to  prove  is  that  God 
in  His  all-wise  Providence  saw  it  to  be  for  the  time  being 
good  for  the  world  that  cuttings  from  the  Imperial  relig- 
ious trees  which  He  had  allowed  His  Jewish  and  Gentile 
children  to  plant  and  cultivate,  should  be  grafted  into 
the  Republican  religious  tree  which  He  had  given  to  His 
Christian  children.  But  the  character  of  a tree  is  not 
changed  by  grafting.  Even  if  every  limb  of  a sweet  apple 
tree  were  to  be  grafted  with  a cutting  from  sour  apple 
trees,  the  tree  in  its  roots  and  stem  would  remain  a sweet 
apple  tree  and  every  limb  that  grew  out  below  a graft 
would  bear  sweet  apples. 

It  must  be  admitted  that,  speaking  broadly,  from  the 
time  of  Constantine  to  Luther,  nearly  twelve  hundred 
years,  the  cuttings  from  the  trees  of  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Imperialism  were  more  and  more  grafted  into  the  tree  of 
Christian  Republicanism,  until  it  must  have  seemed  that 
its  very  nature  had  been  changed  in  its  root  and  trunk, 
as  well  as  in  its  branches.  No  wonder  then  that  such 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


367 


powerful  writers  as  Gore,  Moberly  and  Hall  in  their 
efforts  to  commend  the  Sacerdotal  or  Priestly  theory  of 
the  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  ministry,  are 
able  to  make  a showing  that  is  well  calculated  to  deceive 
and  persuade  even  the  very  elect  among  those  who  stand 
for  true,  primitive  Republican  Christianity. 

But,  ask  Sacerdotalists,  as  if  it  were  a complete  refuta- 
tion of  the  Protestant  doctrine  concerning  the  Chris- 
tian sacraments  and  ministry.  How  can  it  be  consistently 
held  that  Sacraments  which  are  only  material  symbols 
of  subjective  spiritual  realities,  and  not  at  all  material 
vehicles  of  objective  realities,  depending  upon  the  incident 
of  their  proper  reception  instead  of  upon  their  due  ad- 
ministration for  validity  and  efficiency,  make  good  a title 
to  recognition  as  being  of  any  essential  value? 

This  objection  to  the  sacramental  doctrine  of  Prot- 
estantism is  in  substance  raised  by  Pope  Pius  X,  in  his 
Encyclical  against  the  tenents  of  a powerful  school  known 
as  the  “ Modernists,”  which  has  happily  risen  within 
the  Roman  Church,  and,  to  all  appearance,  is  destined 
to  gather  force  until  it  has  worked  a mighty  reformation 
or  revolution  in  that  Church  by  the  protestantization  of 
her  doctrines  and  the  republicanization  of  her  govern- 
ment. The  objection  is  answered  by  a passage  in  an 
anonymous  book,  in  which  the  Modernists  defend  them- 
selves against  the  charges  of  the  Encyclical.  This  book 
is  entitled,  “ The  Program  of  Modernism  and  Encyclical 
of  Pius  X.”  It  was  published  in  1908  and  is,  all  things 
considered,  perhaps  the  most  notable  and  consequential 


368  SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 

contribution  to  the  science  of  theology  from  a Roman 
source  that  has  appeared  within  twenty-five  years.  It 
undoubtedly  strikes  the  most  powerful  blow  that  Roman- 
ism, and  indeed  Sacerdotalism  as  a whole,  has  received 
from  its  own  sons  since  the  publication  of  the  memorable 
Protest  of  Professors  Doellinger  and  Hefele  against  the 
proposal  to  crystallize  the  theory  of  Papal  infallibility 
into  an  article  of  the  Roman  faith.  The  passage  which 
is  to  our  purpose  reads: 

“Subjectivism  and  symbolism  can  no  longer  be  re- 
proaches. The  latest  criticism  of  the  various  knowledge- 
theories  point  to  everything  in  the  realm  of  knowledge, 
the  laws  of  science  and  the  theories  of  metaphysics,  as 
being  subjective  and  symbolic.  But  this  does  not  hinder 
every  such  creation  of  the  human  spirit  in  the  various 
departments  of  its  activity  from  having  an  absolute  value. 
Also  the  world  constructed  by  faith  has  its  life-giving 
value,  and  is  therefore  something  absolute  in  its  own  kind. 
As  for  symbolism,  a symbol  no  longer  means  a fictitious, 
and  perhaps  fraudulent,  substitution  connected  with  igno- 
rant or  erroneous  beliefs.  It  too  is  a reality  of  its  own 
peculiar  kind,  whereon  faith  confers  an  inestimable  value, 
by  which  it  becomes  the  real  vehicle  and  beneficent  occa- 
sion of  an  uplifting  of  the  spirit  and  of  a deeper  religious 
insight.  And  since  our  own  life  is,  for  each  one  of 
us,  something  absolute,  nay,  the  only  absolute  of  our 
direct  experience,  all  that  proceeds  from  it  and  returns 
to  it,  all  that  feeds  it  and  expands  it  more  fruitfully,  has, 
in  like  manner,  the  value  of  something  absolute.  The 


GRACE  OF  SACRAMENTS. 


369 


point  of  the  Encyclical’s  reproach  is  therefore  blunted 
in  these  days.” 

When  I laid  down  the  book  from  which  this  passage 
is  quoted,  it  was  with  the  thankful  feeling  that  we  have  the 
beginning  of  the  end  of  Sacerdotalism,  even  in  the  Roman 
Church  where  it  is  the  most  thoroughly  entrenched. 

Now  and  then  I have  been  accused  of  not  being  a true 
Anglican;  but  I humbly  venture  to  claim  that  any  impar- 
tial effort  to  arrive  at  the  concensus  of  opinion  among  us 
will  show  that  out  of  every  ten,  nine  will  agree  with  the 
representation  that  I am  here  making  rather  than  with 
that  of  the  Rev.  Archibald  C.  Knowles  of  St.  Alban’s 
Church,  Olney,  Pa.,  who  in  a recently  published  pamphlet 
entitled,  “ Church  Unity,”  says : 

‘‘  Not  even  the  most  spiritual  worship  of  the  Protestant 
Bodies  can  be  compared  to  even  the  most  perfunctory 
presence  of  Romanists  at  a Mass  mechanically  rendered; 
for  the  Romanist  at  least  worships  in  the  Sacramental 
Presence  of  the  Lord  of  Glory.  To  quote  an  ancient 
saying,  ‘ It  is  the  Mass  that  matters.’  ” 

I am  quite  willing  to  admit  that  in  the  Church  of  the 
Future,  in  some  way,  I do  not  undertake  to  say  just  how, 
room  must  be  made  for  even  “ Catholics,”  who  talk  like 
this;  but  I cannot  concede  that  their  doctrine  will  con- 
stitute any  part  of  the  basis  upon  which  the  Protestant 
Churches  will  come  together;  or  that  such  doctrine  is 
widely  held  in  the  Churches  which  constitute  the  Anglican 
Communion.  I doubt  whether  all  who  adhere  to  it 
would  constitute  one  good  sized  Diocese,  and  I am  mor- 


370 


SACERDOTAL  AND  PROTESTANT  DOCTRINES. 


ally  certain  that  if  all  Anglicans  who  are  of  this  way  of 
thinking  were  to  be  gathered  into  one  Diocese,  it  would 
contain  more  youthful  “ Catholic  Priests  ” than  “ Catho- 
lic Laymen ; ” for  in  the  Anglican  Communion  the  viru- 
lent type  of  “ Catholicism  ” with  which  this  “ Catholic  ” 
is  so  sorely  afflicted  is  a disease  which  happily  is  generally 
confined  to  the  Clergy  and  women.  The  laymen  who  are 
infected  by  it  are  few  and  far  between;  and,  doubtless 
there  are  fewer  of  them  now  than  there  were  ten  years 
ago. 

The  night  of  Sacerdotalism  with  its  superstition,  tyranny, 
and  sectarianism,  is  giving  place  to  the  day  of  Repub- 
licanism, with  its  science,  freedom  and  concord.  It  is  at 
the  noon-tide  of  this  day  that  may  be  expected  the 
Second  Coming  of  the  Divine  Republican  to  usher  in 
the  glories  of  the  Millenium  with  its  one  folding  and  one 
shepherding.  “ Surely  I come  quickly.  Amen.  Even  so 
come  Lord  Jesus.”  Amen.  Amen. 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES. 


“ Unity  is  that  oneness  in  the  visible  body  of 

CHRIST  THAT  MAKES  MEN  KNOW  AND  BELIEVE.  IT  IS 
WELL  FOR  US  TO  REMEMBER  THAT  THE  GREATEST 
TRIUMPHS  THAT  THE  CHRISTIAN  WORLD  HAS  EVER 
WON  WERE  IN  THE  DAYS  WHEN  THE  CHURCH  WAS 
ONE.  IT  IS  WELL  FOR  US  TO  REMEMBER  THAT  THE 
GREATEST  TRIUMPHS  THAT  CHRISTIANITY  HAS  EVER 
WON  WERE  WON,  SHALL  I SAY,  BEFORE  THE  THIRTY- 
NINE  ARTICLES  WERE  WRITTEN,  OR  THE  WESTMINSTER 
CONFESSION  OR  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION?  AND 
THE  GREATEST  TRIUMPHS  THAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS  GOING 
TO  WIN  WILL  BE  THE  TRIUMPHS  OF  A UNITED  CHRIS- 
TIAN DISCIPLESHIP.  NOBODY  IS  ASKING  ANYBODY  TO 
GIVE  UP  ANYTHING  THAT  IS  OF  VALUE.  WE  CAN  GIVE 
UP  PRIDE ; WE  CAN  GIVE  UP  OUR  ECCLESIASTICAL  CON- 
CEIT; WE  CAN  GIVE  UP  OUR  DENOMINATIONAL  JEAL- 
OUSIES; WE  CAN  GIVE  UP  OUR  INHERITED  PREJUDICES; 
AND  PERHAPS,  BY  THE  GRACE  OF  GOD,  WE  CAN  GIVE  UP 
SOME  OF  OUR  IGNORANCE.  I LAY  THIS  DOWN,  BRETH- 
REN, AS  A PROPOSITION  THAT  HAS  ALREADY  DEMON- 
STRATED ITSELF;  CHRIST-LIKE  CHRISTIANS  CANNOT 
STAY  APART.  THERE  IS  MORE  UNITY  THAN  WE  THINK. 
THE  THINGS  THAT  SEPARATE  CHRISTIANS  ARE  IN- 
CONSEQUENTIAL IN  COMPARISON  WITH  THOSE  THAT 
SEPARATE  CHRISTIANS  FROM  NON-CHRISTIANS.  CHRIST 
IS  FOR  THE  WHOLE  WORLD  AND  THE  WHOLE  WORLD 
FOR  CHRIST.  AND  AS  A MEANS  TO  THAT  END  LET  US 
ALL  BE  PROPHETS  OF  UNITY,  PRIESTS  OF  UNITY,  APOS- 
TLES OF  UNITY.  WE  CAN  DO  THAT  MUCH  AT  ANY 
RATE.  WE  CAN  SAY  OF  UNITY  AS  WE  SAY  OF  UNIVER- 
SALITY; WE  CAN  IF  WE  WILL;  WE  CAN  AND  WE  WILL.” 
— From  the  opening  address  to  the  National  Missionary 
Congress  in  Chicago,  May  3-6,  1910,  by  the  Rt.  Rev. 
Charles  P.  Anderson,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Chicago. 


Reader,  things  cannot  go  on  as  they  are.  Secta- 
rianism in  this  country,  and  throughout  the  world, 
is  in  great  peril  of  becoming  the  most  conspicuous 
and  melancholy  of  all  illustrations  of  the  truth  of  the  pro- 
verb, “ A house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.”  A 
distinguished  metropolitan  Presbyterian  Pastor,  in  a single 
phrase  of  a notable  letter  with  which  he  favored  me  ex- 
pressed many  volumes,  when,  in  speaking  of  the  necessity 
of  unity  on  the  part  of  the  Protestant  Churches  of  our 
country,  he  wrote,  “We  must  get  together  or  go  to  the 
wall.” 

I have  given  you  my  vision  of  the  way  in  which  we  can 
“ get  together,  ” the  way  of  a Level  Common,  Inter- 
Church  Ministry  of  the  Episcopal  type. 

It  is  a dream!  Yes,  but  it  is  not  an  hallucination;  for 
it  is  an  expression  of  the  fundamental  fact  that  institution- 
alism in  any  form,  domestic,  civil,  ecclesiastical,  social 
or  commercial,  cannot  be  created,  sustained,  or  developed, 
except  along  the  lines  of  the  great  underlying,  indispen- 
sable principle  of  unity  and  superintendence,  under  one 
headship. 


374 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


It  is  idealism!  Yes.  But  I hope  that  I have  shown 
that  it  is  idealism  having  a rational  and  historical  basis, 
and  that  therefore  my  plan  for  unity  through  a Common 
Ministry  will  not  be  rejected  on  this  account.  A con- 
sistent Christian  will  be  about  the  last  to  condemn  an  un- 
dertaking having  great  ends  in  view  simply  because  it  is 
stupendously  magnitudinous  and  cannot  be  consummated 
at  once;  or  because  it  is  without  distinguished  advocates. 
Is  it  not  true  that  there  is  a great  deal  of  idealism  in  the 
Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  even  in  the  most  practical  parts 
of- it,  such  as  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Summary  of 
the  Ten  Commandments,  and  the  Prayer  which  was  given 
to  the  Disciples?  Were  not  the  first  Apostles  of  Chris- 
tianity chiefly  fishermen?  “ Thy  Kingdom  come.  Thy 
will  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  Heaven.”  Fishermen,  “Go 
ye  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations.  ” What  astonishing 
idealism  1 

It  is  theoretic!  Yes.  But,  really,  is  not  my  plan  for 
Church  unity  on  the  basis  of  a Common  Ministry,  less 
theoretic  than  any  other  that  has  ever  been  proposed,  since 
it  is  the  only  one  that  has  been  tried  vdth  success? 

But,  the  reader  may  object,  “ The  reorganization  of 
the  Churches  which  you  are  proposing  in  order  that  we 
may  have  a United  Protestant  Church  of  the  United 
States,  and,  ultimately,  a United  Catholic  Church,  will 
organize  my  Church  out  of  existence.”  This  objection 
gives  expression  to  a natural  fear  in  which  the  representa- 
tives of  all  the  Denominations  will  share.  There  are  how- 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES. 


375 


ever,  two  considerations  which  should  remove  any  anxiety 
occasioned  on  this  account. 

The  historic  Church,  for  example,  of  the  English- 
speaking  race,  in  its  organic  national  parts,  and  even  as 
a whole  communion,  certainly  is  no  more  the  Church  of 
God  than  was  the  historic  Church  of  the  Hebrew  race. 
Yet  the  Church  of  the  Hebrews  is  overshadowed  by  the 
Church  of  the  Christians,  somewhat  as  it  is  proposed  to 
overshadow  the  Churches  of  the  divided  Christians  of 
this  country  by  the  Church  of  the  United  States.  As, 
upon  Christian  principles,  there  should  be  no  Jewish 
Church,  so  upon  the  same  principles,  there  should  be  no 
sectarian  Churches. 

The  loss  of  self  for  a high  purpose  is  one  of  the  fun- 
damental requirements  of  our  holy  religion.  Chris- 
tianity, both  ideally  and  practically,  is  really  founded 
upon  the  principle  of  sacrifice;  in  fact  this  is  true  of  civ- 
ilization as  a whole.  God,  in  the  person  of  the  Christ, 
made  the  amazing  sacrifice  of  losing  Himself,  so  far  as  it 
was  possible  for  Divinity  to  lose  itself,  in  the  ocean  of  hu- 
manity, in  order  that  the  world  might  be  saved  from  cor- 
ruption and  death. 

In  view  of  the  astonishing  sacrifice  of  our  Lord,  and 
His  explicit  teaching  concerning  the  necessity  of  sacrifice 
on  the  part  of  His  followers,  why  should  any  sectarian 
Church,  made  up  of  those  who  would  be  His  true  disci- 
ples, object  to  losing  its  identity  in  the  oneness  of  Christ’s 
Body,  the  united  brotherhood  of  believers,  in  order  to  se- 


376 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


cure  that  organic  Christian  unity  upon  which  depends  the 
evangelization  of  the  world. 

Since  it  is  not  only  His  will,  but  His  intense  desire,  to 
which  He  gave  expression  in  exhortation,  prophecy  and 
prayer,  that  His  followers  should  constitute  one  great  all- 
inclusive  flock,  under  one  shepherding  Ministry,  should 
not  the  representatives,  both  Laymen  and  Ministers,  of  all 
the  separate  flocks  in,  for  example,  the  United  States, 
be  not  only  willing,  but  anxious,  to  lose  themselves  into 
one  mighty  Catholic,  national  racial  fold,  under  a com- 
mon. unified  Ministry  which  would  be  able  to  gather,  to 
feed,  to  tend,  and  to  hold  together  such  a flock? 

Another  consideration,  which  should  reconcile  the 
Churches  of  a nation  or  race  to  the  losing  of  themselves 
in  a national  or  racial  Church,  is  the  fact  that  what  they 
already  possess  of  permanent  value  will  live  on  and  operate 
as  a leavening  influence  in  a much  wider  sphere  and  to 
a much  greater  purpose  in  a Catholic  body,  than  it  does 
now  in  its  sectarian  body. 

In  consequence  of  our  sectarianism,  we  Christians  are 
not  obeying  the  two  practical  requirements  of  the  Lord 
Jesus:  (1)  “ Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all 
the  nations;  ” and  (2)  “ Let  your  light  shine  before  men.” 

Let  me  give  a concrete  illustration  of  what  I mean. 
The  attractive  little  city  of  Gallon,  Ohio,  where  I com- 
menced my  Ministry  and  still  have  my  summer  home, 
will  serve  the  purpose  as  well  as  any  other  place.  It 
is  a typical  American  town,  with  a population  of  about 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES. 


377 


10,000,  having  eleven  Protestant  Churches,  but  not  a 
single  charitable  institution  of  any  kind.  It  is  a railroad 
center,  and  should  have  a large,  well-equipped,  free 
hospital.  It  has  no  orphan  asylum  and  no  home  for 
aged  poor. 

Now  how  shall  men  see  the  good  works  of  Gallon  Prot- 
estant Christians  and  glorify  their  Father  which  is  in 
Heaven?  Unhappily,  those  Galionites  are  no  more 
neglectful  of  their  Lord’s  great  commands  than  are  the 
Protestant  Christians  in  other  American  towns. 

Christians  have  a great  mission;  the  enlightening  and 
saving  of  a darkened  world  by  setting  up  the  lamp  of 
the  Gospel  in  every  part ; and  by  keeping  it  filled,  trimmed 
and  burning.  Under  the  most  solemn  of  imaginable 
circumstances,  God  the  Son  revealed  to  His  blessed  Apos- 
tles and  through  them  to  all  His  disciples  of  every  age, 
that  they  could  not  fulfill  their  glorious  mission,  unless 
they  bound  themselves  in  the  closest  unity  to  Himself  and 
to  each  other. 

An  experience  of  the  summer  of  1 909  convinces  me 
that  there  is  no  reason  at  all  why,  for  example,  Presby- 
terians, Methodists,  Baptists  and  the  Disciples  of  Christ 
should  not  worship  and  work  together.  The  Episcopal 
Church  of  Gallon  was  closed  during  the  absence  of  the 
Rector  on  his  vacation,  and  special  circumstances  seemed 
to  make  it  undesirable  that  I should  officiate.  So  on  four 
successive  Sunday  mornings  I attended  in  turn  the  Service 
of  the  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Baptist  and  Disciple 
Churches. 


3'<'8  THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 

I was  surprised  and  impressed  by  the  fact  that  the 
services  were,  as  to  their  order,  and  practically  in  all  other 
respects,  identical.  The  order  was  so  uniform  that  if  the 
four  congregations  had  worshipped  together  their  repre- 
sentatives would  have  felt  perfectly  at  home,  so  far  as 
knowing  what  would  come  next  could  contribute  to  such 
a feeling.  The  Service  in  each  case  made  a favorable  im- 
pression upon  me,  and  I came  away  feeling  that  I had  wor- 
shipped God  as  truly  as  I would  have  done  at  our  own 
Morning  Prayer. 

The  sermons  of  these  services  were  good,  quite  the 
equal,  I think,  of  the  average  sermon  in  the  Episcopal 
Church.  One  of  them  was  on  a very  difficult  article  of 
the  Apostles’  Creed.  The  subject  was  well  handled,  in 
entire  conformity  to  sound  doctrine.  If  occasion  required, 
I should  be  glad  to  take  advantage  of  Canon  xix  in 
licensing  the  preachers  of  those  sermons,  in  any  Church  of 
the  Diocese  of  Arkansas. 

I could  not  help  feeling  it  to  be  a matter  of  great 
regret  that  the  four  congregations  could  not  have  wor- 
shipped together  on  those  Sunday  mornings.  There  would 
have  been  plenty  of  room  and  to  spare  in  any  one  of  their 
Churches,  and  there  would  have  been  greater  enthusiasm 
for  the  people,  and  inspiration  for  the  Minister. 

And  now  I relate  a remarkable  fact  which  shows  that 
there  really  is  no  reason  why  these  congregations  of  Pres- 
byterians, Methodists,  Baptists  and  Disciples  might  not 
have  worshipped  together  on  those  Sunday  mornings  or 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES.  3^9 

why  they  might  not  worship  together  every  Sunday  morn- 
ing. 

The  Protestant  Churches  of  Galion  have  a custom, 
which  happily  seems  to  be  spreading  throughout  the  coim- 
try,  of  having  Union  Services  on  the  Sunday  evenings  of 
July  and  August.  These  Services  are  held  in  the  several 
Church  buildings  in  regular  rotation,  and  the  Pastors 
preach  in  turn,  in  accordance  with  an  order  which  provides 
that  no  Pastor  will  preach  in  his  own  Church.  One  of 
these  services  which  I attended  was  held  in  the  German 
Reformed  Church,  the  largest  ecclesiastical  structure  in 
town.  There  must  have  been  seven  hundred  people  in 
the  main  part  of  the  Church,  and  fully  three  hundred  who 
came  could  not  gain  admittance,  because  the  Sunday 
School  room  could  not  be  thrown  open  on  account  of  the 
breaking  of  the  cable  of  the  connecting  doors. 

The  tmth  which  I wish  to  impress  lies  on  the  surface, 
and  it  is  a truth  having  a fundamental  bearing  upon  the 
question  of  Christian  unity.  If  the  representatives  of  the 
Protestant  Churches,  both  clerical  and  lay,  of  Galion  and 
other  places  throughout  the  United  States  can  worship  to- 
gether on  Sunday  evenings  in  July  and  August  each  year, 
there  is  no  reason  in  principle  why  they  might  not  do  so 
on  Sunday  mornings  as  well  as  evenings  all  the  year 
around. 

Among  the  most  hopeful  signs  of  the  times  so  far 
as  they  relate  to  the  great  and  pressing  problem  of  Church 
union,  and  there  are  many  such  signs,  is  the  fact  that 
the  Laity  in  all  of  the  Churches  have  become  dissatisfied 


380 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


with  sectarianism  and  are  doing  what  they  can  to  dis- 
courage the  sectarian  spirit  in  the  preaching  of  their 
Ministers.  The  majority  of  them  will  no  longer  patiently 
listen  to  the  sectarian  sermons  which  were  not  only  ac- 
ceptable to  their  fathers  but  demanded  by  them.  The  time 
was,  even  within  my  memory,  when  the  average  congre- 
gation felt  that  it  was  being  defrauded  of  its  just  dues,  un- 
less its  Minister  in  nearly  every  sermon  quite  pointedly 
contrasted  the  excellencies  of  his  Church  with  the  imper- 
fections of  all  rivals  in  the  community. 

Speaking  of  the  decadence  of  the  sectarian  spirit,  a 
prominent  layman  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  great 
metropolis  of  our  country  remarked  to  me  that  a few 
years  ago  he  knew  the  religious  affiliations  of  almost  every 
man  with  whom  he  came  into  close  contact,  and  was 
strongly  inclined  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  those  of  his 
own  household  of  faith;  but  that  now,  although  I know 
him  to  be  as  devout  a Churchman  as  ever,  it  seldom  occurs 
to  him  even  to  inquire  concerning  the  ecclesiastical  rela- 
tionship of  a new  acquaintance,  and  between  himself  and 
members  of  another  Church  than  his  own  there  is  no 
longer  the  slightest  barrier  to  the  development  of  the 
closest  intimacy. 

No  stronger  evidence  of  the  decline  of  sectarianism 
among  the  laity  is  needed  than  is  afforded  by  the  organi- 
zation and  development  of  the  Y oung  Men’s  Christian  As- 
sociation and  by  the  mighty  Inter-Church  Laymen’s  Mis- 
sionary Movement  which  has  recently  been  set  on  foot. 
This  movement  which  is  destined  to  gather  force,  and. 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES. 


381 


SO  far  as  the  laity  are  concerned,  sweep  everything  before 
it,  would  have  been  an  impossibility  only  ten  or  fifteen 
years  ago. 

Most  happily  this  breaking  down  of  sectarian  walls 
between  the  laity,  is  destined  to  be  completed  in  the  near 
future,  and  then  will  begin  a general  and  persistent  demand 
for  a different  order  of  things,  by  doing  away  with  our 
unnecessary  and  hurtful  divisions.  There  is  no  other  goal 
at  which  the  several  inter-Church  movements  can  logically 
converge  and  terminate.  The  idea  that  these  movements 
are  destined  to  die  out  before  their  aim  at  a world-wide 
co-operating  Christian  brotherhood  is  realized,  can  be  en- 
tertained only  by  those  who  do  not  give  sufficient  attention 
to  the  teaching  of  history  concerning  similar  movements. 
The  determination  of  the  Laity  to  ignore  sectarian  bound- 
aries and  to  get  together  must  sooner  or  later  spread  to 
the  Clergy.  Indeed,  in  many  places,  this  unifying  leaven 
of  the  Laity  has  already  permeated  the  Ministry,  and,  to 
a very  perceptible  degree,  is  doing  its  blessed  work  of 
unification.  The  great  Inter-Church  Conference  Move- 
ment originated  by  ministerial  associations  was  made  a 
blessed  possibility  because  of  this  leaven  of  the  laity. 

I am  sure  that  it  has  not  entered  into  the  heart  of  the 
majority  of  Christians,  to  conceive  of  all  the  manifold  and 
wide-spread  good  that  would  result  from  the  coming  to- 
gether of  the  Protestant  Churches  of  the  United  States. 
It  would  give  them  the  spiritual  unity  of  “ the  Communion 
of  Saints,  ” such  as  now  exists  between  the  various  national 
branches  of  the  Anglican  Communion;  a national  and 


383 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


international  Denominational  co-operation  in  missionary, 
philanthropic  and  reformatory  enterprises,  a great  system 
of  inter-Denominational  hospitals,  orphanages,  homes  and 
eleemosynary  properties,  national  and  perhaps  also  inter- 
national missionary  societies ; a Denominational  partition  of 
the  mission  field  in  heathen  countries;  a reduction  of  the 
number  of  superfluous  Churches,  and  a corresponding  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  resident  Ministers  in  the  villages 
and  rural  districts  of  Christian  countries;  a partition  be- 
tween the  Denominations  of  the  work  among  the  poor  of 
our  great  cities ; a consolidation  of  small  and  struggling  city 
parishes  into  great  Churches ; the  solution  of  the  ministerial 
supply  problem;  an  order  of  special  preachers;  crowded 
Protestant  Churches ; attractive  inspiring  Services ; an  ade- 
quate Clerical  staff  for  all  the  larger  parishes;  a division 
of  ministerial  labors  among  those  who  have  a special 
aptitude  for  the  work  to  be  done;  much  better  Theolog- 
ical Seminaries;  a better  qualified  Protestant  Ministry,  and 
last,  but  not  least,  better  equipped,  more  efficient  Sunday 
Schools. 

All  this  and  much  more  would  be  the  ultimate  and 
inevitable  result  of  the  unification  of  Protestant  Chris- 
tianity. 

The  great  Head  of  the  Church,  whose  doctrines  we 
are  to  disseminate  and  whose  glory  we  are  to  promote,  is 
One,  and  therefore  the  organization  for  its  accomplish- 
ment should  be  one.  The  doctrines  and  precepts  enjoined, 
the  motives  to  obedience,  the  duties  to  be  performed, 
the  rewards  and  punishments  proposed,  are  one  cind  the 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES. 


383 


same  for  all;  therefore  the  society  should  be  one.  The 
entrance  into  this  spiritual  kingdom,  the  new  birth,  is 
the  same  for  all,  and  the  same  truth  is  the  food  for  all. 
Why  should  we  not  walk  together?  All  have  been 
bought  by  the  same  blood  of  Christ  from  the  same  thral- 
dom of  sin;  the  badges  of  membership.  Baptism  and  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  are  the  same  for  all ; and  why  are  we  not 
all  one?  The  truth  is,  if  we  would  only  admit  and  realize 
and  live  it,  we  are  one. 

The  kingdom  of  Christ  is  set  up  in  the  world  for  the 
purpose  of  gaining  a conquest  for  the  Gospel  over  the  whole 
earth.  It  is  an  admitted  as  well  as  an  important  truth 
that  union  is  strength.  If  all  the  zeal  and  learning  and 
effort  that  are  expended  by  Christian  churches  in  com- 
peting with  one  another,  were  devoted  to  the  propagation 
of  the  Gospel,  teaching  sinners  the  way  of  life,  it  would 
require  but  a few  years  to  preach  it  to  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth. 

One  of  the  reasons  why  Jesus  prayed  for  union  was 
that  the  world  might  believe  in  His  mission;  “that  the 
world  may  believe  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me.” 

So  far  as  our  own  Christianized  countries  are  concerned, 
it  is  conceded  that,  in  her  divided  state,  it  is  impossible  for 
the  Church  to  give  adequate  ministrations  to  villages  and 
rural  districts,  or  to  sufficiently  administer  to  the  needs 
of  the  poor  in  our  great  centers  of  population. 

The  same  line  of  argument  which  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians,  who  are  standing 
upon  the  Catholic  principle  that  the  Lord  Jesus  created  a 


384 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Royal  Family  or  Priesthood  instead  of  a Kingdom  or 
Church,  should  come  together  under  a Common  Ministry 
will  ultimately  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  Sacerdotal 
Catholics  and  Republican  Protestants  can  and  therefore 
should  get  together.  For  notwithstanding  all  the  con- 
troversy between  them,  there  is  no  difference  on  account 
of  which  separation  can  be  justified  as  a moral  necessity. 

It  is  indeed  true  that  Sacerdotal  Catholics  maintain  that 
the  Lord  created  officers  and  left  them  to  create  a Church, 
while  Republican  Protestants  contend  that  He  created  a 
Church  and  left  it  to  create  officers.  Here  the  principle 
involved  is  that  of  creation,  and  both  are  agreed  that  ul- 
timately Christ  must  be  regarded  as  the  direct  or  Indirect 
creator  of  the  Church.  The  question  of  how  He  did  the 
creating,  whether  through  Ministers  of  His  making  or 
People  of  His  making,  has  to  do  with  theories  that  may 
well  be  sacrificed  for  the  sake  of  unity  which  is  seen 
to  be  absolutely  necessary  to  the  universal  spread  of  His 
Kingdom  and  its  complete  development. 

Nor  must  we  lose  sight  of  the  reassuring  fact  that  both 
the  Sacerdotal  Catholic  and  Republican  Protestant  theo- 
ries of  the  origin  of  the  Church  may  at  bottom  be  equally 
true.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  the  essential  requirement  is 
that  the  Church  should  be  acknowledged  to  be  a Divine 
institution;  and  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  well  be  ad- 
mitted that  during  the  short  period  between  the  call  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  Ascension,  the  Association,  Brother- 
hood or  Church  of  believers  was  Divine  because  of  the 
presence  of  the  God-Man  Himself;  and  that  afterwards. 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES. 


385 


until  Pentecost,  it  continued  to  be  Divine,  because  of  the 
leadership,  under  His  almost  immediate  influence  of  the 
blessed,  faithful  Eleven  whom  He  had  associated  with 
Himself  during  the  three  years  of  His  public  Ministry. 

And  surely  Sacerdotal  Catholics  will  admit  that  the 
Church  from  Whitsunday  until  this  time,  and  to  the  Second 
Coming,  must  be  regarded  as  Divine,  even  on  the  Protes- 
tant theory  that  the  ruling  or  leading  authority  of  the  Lord 
and  His  Apostles  ended,  and  that  the  more  ordinary, 
though  not  less  supernatural  dispensation  of  Providence, 
under  the  influence  of  God’s  Spirit  commenced. 

Really  it  is  not  at  all  necessary,  in  order  to  maintain 
the  Divine  character  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  to  insist  upon 
the  acceptance  of  the  theory  contained  in  the  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession.  The  doctrine  of  the  presence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  the  Provi- 
dential ruling  of  it  by  Him  is  all  that  should  be  required 
in  the  way  of  a confession  of  a Divine  character  for  the 
Church  as  a basis  of  Christian  unity.  According  to  either 
of  theSe  doctrines,  the  Church  is  sufficiently  Divine.  Why, 
then,  cannot  Sacerdotal  Catholics  and  Republican  Protes- 
tants agree  to  differ  as  to  the  doctrinal  theory  of  account- 
ing for  her  Divinity,  and  join  hands  in  endeavors  to  make 
her  the  light  of  a sin  darkened  world? 

As  for  the  questions  concerning  sacramental  grace, 
which  for  so  many  centuries  have  sorely  vexed  the  Church, 
why  should  Sacerdotal  Catholics  and  Republican  Protes- 
tants allow  them  any  longer  to  keep  them  apart  while  the 
world  is  perishing  for  the  want  of  their  united  effort? 

On  the  one  hcind  it  is  believed  that  the  worthy  recipient 


386 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


of  Ordination  and  of  the  other  sacramental  ordinances 
especially  Baptism,  Confirmation  and  the  Holy  Commun- 
ion, is  given  an  infusion  of  something  which  he  had  not 
before,  that  will  enable  him  to  make  the  example  and  pre- 
cepts of  the  Lord  Jesus  his  pattern  and  rule  of  life,  as 
otherwise  he  could  not. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  believed  that  a grace  which  is 
already  in  the  possession  of  every  member  of  the  human 
race,  as  an  universal  effect  of  the  infusion  of  the  Divine 
nature  into  human  nature  through  the  Incarnation,  is 
strengthened  in  the  worthy  recipient  of  any  of  the  Sacer- 
dotal ordinances  of  our  holy  religion,  so  that  he  is  enabled 
to  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Divine  Saviour,  as  other- 
wise he  could  not. 

It  is  a palpable  fact,  perfectly  evident  to  all  who  are 
not  so  blinded  with  the  bandage  of  sectarian  prejudice 
that  they  cannot  see  such  facts,  that  both  the  Sacerdotal 
Catholics  and  Republican  Protestants  are,  everywhere, 
throughout  Christendom,  with  equal  success,  living  the 
Christ  life  and  growing  into  the  full  stature  of  exemplary 
Christian  manhood  and  womanhood.  Since  then,  both 
have  the  substance  and  bear  the  fruits  of  sacramental 
grace,  why  should  they  continue  their  hurtful  disputings, 
as  to  whether  or  not  the  Christ  life  and  growth  which  they 
respectively  exhibit  is  to  be  explained  as  the  result  of  an 
infusion  of  grace  or  the  strengthening  of  grace? 

Having  by  the  mutual  and  common  consent  of  all  sensi- 
ble, candid  people,  the  substance  of  Divine  grace  why 
may  we  not,  with  perfect  consistency,  without  any  refer 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES. 


387 


ence  to  our  widely  divergent  theories  as  to  how  we  have 
come  into  possession  of  it,  walk  hand  in  hand  in  the  ways 
of  goodwill  and  peace,  and  fight  shoulder  to  shoulder  for 
the  conquest  of  the  world  for  our  King? 

Because  of  our  equally  warm  love  for  the  Christ,  our 
Elder  Brother,  and  because  of  our  equally  strong  desire 
for  the  salvation  of  the  world  let  us  cease  our  unseemly, 
blighting  wranglings  as  to  how  we  have  come  into  the 
possession  of  enabling  grace,  and  by  cordially  co-operating 
with  each  other,  make  use  of  it  for  our  own  good,  and  for 
the  furtherance  of  our  Lord’s  Kingdom. 

Not  even  does  sentiment  or  reverence  for  the  Church 
as  a sacred  Institution  necessarily  constitute  an  insuperable 
barrier  to  the  association  of  Sacerdotal  Catholics  and  Re- 
publican Protestants  in  public  worship,  or  to  co-operation 
in  missionary  and  philanthropic  undertakings.  For,  as  I 
have  intimated,  if  He  who  is  acknowledged  by  both  as 
Lord  and  Saviour  did  not  found  the  Church,  by  giving 
specific  directions  to  His  first  Apostles  respecting  its  con- 
stitution, it  is  nevertheless  Divine  as  the  result  of  Provi- 
dential developments  growing  out  of  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel. 

When  the  religious  devolutionist  and  the  religious  evo- 
lutionist go  below  the  surface  of  things,  they  find  that  the 
difference  in  their  views  concerning  the  origin  and  au- 
thority of  the  Christian  church  and  ministry,  afford  no 
reason  why  they  should  continue  to  stand  aloof  from  each 
other. 

The  renowned  historical  critic.  Professor  Pfleiderer,  is 


388 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


perhaps  as  radical  as  any  among  the  great  authorities 
in  the  field  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities,  in  his  opposition 
to  the  theory  of  devolution  by  which  Sacerdotalists  ac- 
count for  the  existence  of  the  institutions  of  Christianity 
and  for  the  obligations  connected  with  them;  but  in  all 
literature  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a paragraph  which 
gives  expression  to  more  of  reverential  sentiment  for  or- 
ganic Christianity  than  is  found  in  these  words,  spoken 
in  1894,  on  the  occasion  of  his  becoming  Rector  of  the 
University  of  Berlin.  It  seems  to  me  that  after  reading 
what  he  says  the  most  extreme  Sacerdotalist  in  the  world, 
whoever  he  may  be,  say  Pope  Pius  X,  must  feel  that  he 
would  like  to  shake  hands  with  Professor  Pfleiderer  and 
enter  into  a partnership  with  him  in  some  undertaking  for 
the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  man.  Nor,  can  there 
be  any  doubt  that  together  they  might  accomplish  what 
otherwise  could  not  be  done.  Here  is  the  notable  utter- 
ance: 

“ If  we  learn  from  history  that  the  great  institutions  of 
society,  the  State  and  the  Church,  are  neither  a finished 
gift  from  Heaven  nor  a creation  of  human  caprice,  but 
the  result  of  a development  which  has  run  a course  of 
thousands  of  years,  and  to  which  unnumbered  deeds  and 
sufferings,  conflicts  and  sacrifices,  of  all  generations  have 
contributed;  such  an  insight  can  only  increase  our  rever- 
ence for  these  institutions,  and  strengthen  the  purpose  to 
devote  all  our  powers  in  order  to  maintain  the  holy  inherit- 
ance of  the  fathers  unimpaired  amidst  the  storms  of 
the  present  time,  and  to  give  it  an  ever  richer  development 


APPEAL  TO  THE  CHURCHES. 


389 


and  a finer  form  for  the  welfare  of  the  coming  genera- 
tions.” 

In  beginning  this  book,  I quoted  a renowned  teacher’s 
prophetic  words,  “ The  world  will  never  be  converted  by 
a disunited  Church;”  and  now  let  me  end  it  with  the  burn- 
ing appeal  of  one  of  the  many  hero  missionaries,  “of 
whom  the  world  is  not  worthy,”  for  that  coming  together 
of  the  Churches  without  which,  as  all  workers  in  mission 
fields  have  come  to  see,  the  Christian  civilization  cannot  be 
universally  extended  and  fully  developed.  If  you  can 
read  his  pathetic  and  representative  appeal  to  the  Churches 
of  Europe  and  America  without  being  touched  to  tears, 
you  can  do  more  than  I could  do  when  I first  read  it. 

“ Can  you  not,”  he  asks,  “ restore  to  us  the  unity  of 
the  Christian  Church?  For  the  sake  of  the  life  of  young 
Churches  and  great  nations,  for  the  sake  of  perplexed 
Christianity  of  your  own  lands,  for  the  sake  of  the  honor  of 
your  Lord,  now  at  least  make  real  to  yourselves  and  visi- 
ble to  the  world  the  unity  of  the  Body  of  Christ.  We 
have  long  lamented  our  divisions,  and  we  have  begun  to 
be  ashamed  of  them.  We  have  spoken  with  pious  grief 
about  the  rent  robe  of  Christ,  and  longed  for  its  knitting 
together  again.  We  have  forgotten  that  there  is  not 
merely  a rent  robe,  but  there  is  a wounded  body ; and  that 
wounded  body  is  the  Body  of  your  Lord,  in  pain  till  its 
wounds  be  healed. 

“ The  Churches  which  you  have  planted  across  the 
seas  have  not  been  won  by  your  words  of  division.  In 
the  days  of  the  great  persecution  in  China,  nine  years 


390 


The  level  plan  for  church  union. 


ago,  when  the  Boxers  tested  the  Christians  there,  they  did 
not  test  them  by  the  Westminster  Confession,  nor  by  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  nor  by  the  Twenty-four,  nor  by  the 
Sermons  of  Wesley.  Instinctively  they  chose  a more 
universal  and  a more  searching  test.  Drawing  a rude 
cross  upon  the  ground,  they  called  on  their  prisoners  to 
trample  it  under  foot,  offering  life  and  freedom  to  those 
who  did  so,  and  death  to  those  who  refused.  In  that 
hour  of  terror,  some  fell  from  a scarcely  grasped  faith, 
but  many  thousands,  men,  women  and  children,  could  not 
bring  themselves  to  put  a contemptuous  foot  on  the  rudest 
symbol  of  the  holy  passion  of  their  Redeemer,  and  they 
died  unflinchingly,  not  as  Anglicans,  Wesleyans  or  Pres- 
byterians, but  as  Christians,  members  of  the  one  Body, 
holding  the  one  faith,  inspired  by  the  one  Spirit;  and  so 
they  gained  the  Crown  of  Life. 

“ The  testimony  of  these  martyrs,  and  the  voice  of 
the  Church  which  glories  in  cherishing  their  memory,  has 
one  clear  message  for  us  in  the  Western  Churches,  and 
it  is  this:  ‘ It  was  never  your  words  of  division  that  won 
us  and  drew  us  to  the  faith  and  service  of  Christ.  When 
you  speak  these  words  of  division  your  voice  is  the  voice 
of  strangers,  and  the  flock  of  Christ  will  neither  hear  nor 
follow.  But  when  you  speak  the  word  of  the  Cross  you 
use  an  irresistible  spell.  In  that  sign  you  conquer  us.’ 

“ So  far  you  all,  no  doubt,  approve.  But  note  what 
follows.  ‘ If  our  divisions  have  no  vital  place  in  your 
mission  to  the  world,  if  you  cannot  commend  them  to 
others  why  perpetuate  them  among  ourselves?’  ” 


The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 


APPENDIX 


The  CHIEF  BARRIER  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNITY. 

BY 

“ANGLICAN  PRESBYTER." 


CONTENTS. 


Prefatory  Note 393 

I.  The  Origin  and  Powers  of  the  Episcopate...  404 

II.  Episcopacy  the  Esse  or  Bene  Esse  of 

THE  Church  426 

III.  Can  a Body  of  Christian  Laymen  Create  its 

OWN  Ministry? 439 

IV.  The  Canons  of  Hippolytus  and  a 

Republican  Episcopate 452 

V.  Bishop  Hall  on  the  Apostolic  Ministry 477 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


IN  THE  third  part  of  the  following  essay,  under  the 
heading — The  Canons  of  Hippolytus  and  a Repub- 
lican Episcopate — I claimed  that  in  the  opinion  as  to 
what  functions  belong  essentially,  and  therefore  exclusively, 
to  the  Episcopate,  lies  the  crux  of  the  unity  problem.  The 
contention  running  throughout  the  entire  three  parts  is,  that 
there  are  no  functions  belonging  exclusively  to  the  Episco- 
pate, since  the  latter  is  merely  a higher  office  which  was 
developed  out  of  the  one  order  of  Presbyter-Bishops  by  its 
own  members  to  meet  an  emergency,  to  which  was  given 
the  definite  title  of  the  Episcopate.  Thus  per  se  this  higher 
office  possesses  no  functions  which  do  not  belong  equally 
to  every  member  of  the  lower  office,  the  Presbyterate 
proper.  This  I showed  was  not  only  the  conclusion  of  the 
majority  of  our  own  Anglican  scholars,  but  that  it  was 
also  the  opinion  of  certain  noted  Roman  Catholic  and 
Protestant  writers. 

In  harmony  with  this  view  I may  again  quote  from  the 
Dean  of  Westminster,  Dr.  Robinson,  to  the  effect,  that 


394 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


“ the  Monarchial  Episcopate  quickly  became  the  symbol 
and  safeguard  of  the  Church’s  fellowship  ” (The  Vision 
of  Unity  and  other  Addresses) . In  an  editorial,  the  Church 
Times,  as  representing  the  ‘ Catholics  ’ in  the  Church  of 
England,  said,  “ Dean  Robinson’s  earnest  and  devout 
pleas  for  unity  are  weakened  by  his  seeming  endorsement 
of  the  common  conception  of  Episcopacy  merely  as  a 
form  of  government  ...  it  was  not  as  a useful  head 
official  that  ‘ the  Bishop  was  the  centre  of  unity  ’ . . . 

rather  the  Bishop  was  the  successor  of  the  Apostles 
and  stood  in  the  place  of  Jesus  Christ.”  (Nov.  13th, 
1 908.)  This  is  the  ‘‘  Catholic  ” theory  of  the  Episcopate, 
which  the  Church  Times  in  the  further  editorial  on  Pres- 
byterian Orders  represents  as  the  view  that  the  Church’s 
Ministry  is  transmitted  in  “an  unbroken  successive  series 
from  Christ  and  His  Apostles,”  adding,  “ Only  the  or- 
dained can  ordain.”  This  is  but  another  way  of  describ- 
ing the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession  (a  succession 
transmitted  through  the  Episcopate  exclusively),  “of 
which  fiction,”  wrote  Dean  Alford,  “ I find  in  the  New 
Testament  no  trace,”  and  to  which  Canon  Rashdall  re- 
ferred as,  “a  gigantic  figment.”  Notwithstanding  all  this, 
however,  the  Church  Times  claims  that  “ Theologians 
have  demonstrated  in  many  folios  and  quartos  the  Divine 
right  of  Monarchial  Episcopacy  as  the  true  and  Scriptural 
form  of  ecclesiastical  polity.”  It  adds,  “ Others  have 
argued  that  it  is  only  of  the  bene  esse  of  the  Church,  not 
its  esse.  We  hold  that  it  is  certainly  of  the  Divine  insti- 
tution.” Thus  it  concludes,  “ Until  the  Catholic  and 


APPENDIX. 


395 


Liberal  conceptions  of  what  is  meant  by  the  Church  of 
God  are  brought  nearer  to  one  another,  reunionists  are 
working  for  different  ends,  and  while  the  rent  is  being 
drawn  together  in  one  place,  it  is  by  the  very  act  made 
worse  at  another.”  These  are  weighty  words,  weighty 
because  they  are  true.  No  efforts  for  Christian  unity, 
however  sincere  and  strenuous,  can  ever  accomplish  their 
desired  end  while  amongst  those  seeking  it  there  exist  two 
irreconcilable  conceptions  as  to  what  is  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  constitute  such  unity.  But  do  Christians  believe 
in  their  Lord’s  prayer  for  unity,  which  meant  of  course 
corporate  as  well  as  spiritual  unity,  since  the  hearing  of 
the  Master’s  voice  was  to  result  not  merely  in  one  aim, 
but  also  in  one  (Jno.  x,  16.)  It  was  this  feature 

which  our  Lord  evidently  included  in  His  prayer  for  unity 
in  order  to  convince  the  world  of  the  complete  oneness 
of  Himself  with  the  Father  and  of  all  men  in  both.  (Jno. 
xvii,  20,  21.)  We  take  it  for  granted  that  all  Christians 
do  believe  in  this  prayer,  and  that  in  so  believing  they  will 
further  recognize  the  necessity  of  removing  at  all  cost  the 
barriers  which  stand  in  the  way  of  its  fulfillment.  Now  the 
chief  barrier  is  undoubtedly  the  disputed  point  as  to  what 
constitutes  the  real  character  and  value  of  Episcopacy,  as 
this  is  the  basis  upon  which  the  conception  of  the  whole 
“ Catholic  Church  ” is  built.  Now  the  “ Catholic  ” view 
of  the  Episcopate  is  explained  by  Bishop  Short  as  fol- 
lows— “ According  to  the  doctrine  of  an  Episcopal 
Church,  he  who  was  ordained  without  the  presence  of  a 
Bishop  was  never  ordained  at  all;  he  wants  the  essence 


396 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


of  ordination,  the  laying-on-of  the  hands  of  a Bishop. 
(His.  Ch.  Eng.  p.  246,  note.)  Some  Anglican  writers 
have  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  Preface  to  our  Ordinal 
as  extended  in  1661  with  the  additional  clause,  “ or  hath 
Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordination,”  has  still  “ nothing 
whatever  to  say  upon  the  subject  of  Apostolic  Succession, 
or  the  validity  or  non-validity  of  non-Episcopal  ordina- 
tion.” ( McCrady- Apostolic  Succession  and  the  Problem 
of  Unity,  p.  43.)  Bishop  Barry,  however,  in  his 
Teacher’s  Prayer  Book  refers  to  this  addition  as  “ clearly 
distinguishing  Episcopal  Ordination  from  all  other,  and 
all  exceptions  to  it  for  the  future  disallowed  ” (p.  508  d.) . 
Bishop  Short,  referring  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  ( 1 662)  , 
which  included  the  revised  Ordinal  of  the  previous  year, 
says,  ” though  diversity  of  opinion  has  been  entertained 
as  to  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  foreign  reformed 
Churches,  the  question  was  now  decided  with  regard  to 
the  Church  of  England  . . . for  the  future  was 

now  settled  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  and  rightly  so 
settled  if  the  principles  previously  laid  down  with  regard 
to  Episcopacy  be  correct.”  (ib.,  p.  243.) 

Much  controversy  has  arisen  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
expression  Historic  Episcopate  in  the  fourth  clause  of  the 
platform  of  unity  adopted  by  the  Anglican  authorities  at 
Lambeth  in  1888.  Writers  like  Mr.  McCrady  labor  to 
show  that  the  above  expression  as  embodying  a belief  is 
entirely  distinct  from  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession 
(ib.,  pp.  43,  ff;  139,  ff.)  Bishop  Seymour,  however,  who 
attended  that  conference,  says,  “ In  the  judgment  of 


APPENDIX. 


397 


Lightfoot,  as  evidently  in  the  intention  of  the  Ordinal,  the 
‘ Historic  Episcopate  ’ includes  the  Apostolic  Succession.” 
(Proofs  of  the  Historic  Episcopate,  p.  4.)  Bishop  Sey- 
mour, in  thus  referring  to  Lightfoot,  after  quoting  a sentence 
from  one  of  the  addresses  of  this  great  scholar,  has  infused 
into  his  words  a meaning  they  do  not  necessarily  bear,  and 
which  is  seen  to  be  altogether  contrary  to  his  mind  on  this 
subject  when  compared  with  his  defined  position  expressed 
in  other  utterances.  Apart  from  Bishop  Lightfoot,  how- 
ever, Bishop  Seymour  correctly  defined  the  opinion  of 
the  main  body  of  the  Present  Anglican  Bishops,  together 
with  the  real  intention  of  our  Ordinal  as  amended  in  1661. 
and  ratified  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity  in  1 662.  Mr. 
McCrady  assumes  that  the  Oxford  movement,  beginning 
in  1833,  was  the  real  source  and  mother  of  the  present 
wide-spread  interpretation  of  the  phrase  “ the  Historic 
Episcopate  ” as  including,  or  as  synonymous  with.  Apos- 
tolic Succession.  (ib.,  p.  128.  cf.  18.)  It  was,  however, 
in  1 832  that  Bishop  Short  published  his  “ History  of  the 
Church  of  England”  from  which  we  have  previously 
quoted.  Our  references  show  the  view  of  a Bishop 
and  noted  scholar  of  his  day  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
revised  Ordinal.  When,  therefore,  we  add  to  this  the 
further  view  held  to-day  equally  by  Bishops  Barry  and 
Seymour,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Mr.  McCrady, 
and  all  similar  apologists,  are  entirely  in  error  in  their 
opinion  that  our  present  Ordinal,  and  the  phrase  ” Historic 
Episcopate,”  as  used  in  the  fourth  clause  of  the  Chicago 
Lambeth  Quadrilateral,  do  not  imply  the  acceptance  of 


398 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession.  Nor  let  it  be  sup- 
posed for  a moment  that  the  sentence  in  the  Preface  of 
the  Ordinal,  “in  this  Church”  affects  our  conclusion  in  the 
least  by  signifying  that  the  Anglican  Church  “ requires 
Episcopal  ordination  for  the  administration  of  her  own 
ordinances,  but  in  so  doing  does  not  deny  the  validity  of 
the  ordinances  of  other  Churches,  though  non-Episcopal.” 
(Blakeney — The  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  p.  828.) 
Before  the  paragraph  of  this  Preface  which  deals  with 
the  character  of  the  Orders  recognized  “ in  this  Church,” 
there  is  another  dealing  with  the  character  of  Orders 
generally.  Originally  this  merely  stated  that  no  man 
could  privately  of  his  own  authority  execute  any  of  the 
ministerial  Orders  before  he  had  been  “ first  called,  tried, 
and  examined.”  In  1661,  however,  to  this  direction  was 
added,  “ by  lawful  authority.”  It  has  been  attempted  to 
show  that  the  authority  here  referred  to  means  no  more 
than  the  ordering  “ by  men  who  have  public  authority 
given  them  in  the  congregation.”  (McCrady,  ib.  p.  38.) 
Undoubtedly  the  Reformers  so  viewed  this  authority, 
but  not  so  the  Revisers  of  1661,  who  meant  their  added 
phrase  “ by  lawful  authority,”  to  be  understood  as  includ- 
ing Episcopal  ordination  at  the  hands  of  one  who  himself 
was  a lawful  Bishop  by  virtue  of  his  elevation  to  the  Epis- 
copate by  Episcopal  ordination.  Hence  they  concluded 
the  directions  for  the  Episcopal  ordaining  of  candidates 
for  Orders  in  “ this  Church,”  wnth  the  sentence,  “or  hath 
had  Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordination.” 


APPENDIX. 


399 


Returning  to  the  phrase  “ Historic  Episcopate  ” in  the 
fourth  clause  of  the  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral. 
The  acceptance  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  has  here  been 
made  a sine  qua  non  to  Christian  unity  by  the  Anglican 
Church.  But  how  is  this  to  be  accepted  by  non-Episco- 
pal  Churches.  The  only  way,  according  to  our  Ordinal, 
is  by  their  receiving  Episcopal  ordination  from  us,  or 
from  some  other  Historic  Episcopal  Church,  that  is  to  say, 
by  means  of  an  Apostolic  Succession.  Thus  it  is  that 
whether  the  framers  of  the  Quadrilateral  meant  it  or  no, 
its  fourth  clause  as  interpreted  by  our  present  Ordinal 
does  include,  as  Bishop  Seymour  said,  the  Apostolic 
Succession,  while  it  is  equally  so  viewed  by  non-Episco- 
pal  scholars.  (Prof.  Williston  Walker — The  Validity  of 
Congregational  Ordination,  p.  4.) 

In  his  famous  sermon,  the  Dean  of  Westminster  said, 
“ I have  chosen  the  subject  of  Christian  unity,  because  it 
is  to  my  thinking  by  far  the  most  Important  that  presents 
itself  at  the  moment  of  history  at  which  we  have  now 
arrived.”  But  how  is  it  possible  to  talk  of  unity  between 
Episcopalians  and  Protestants,  or,  as  the  Church  Times 
expressed  it,  between  Catholics  and  Liberals,  when  they 
differ  radically  as  to  the  character  of  the  basis  essential 
to  such  unity?  It  is  impossible,  and  so  it  is  for  this  reason 
that  I said  that  the  chief  barrier  to  Christian  unity  was 
the  disputed  point  as  to  what  constituted  the  real  char- 
acter and  value  of  Episcopacy.  Notwithstanding  our 
present  Ordinal,  I believe  the  Church  Times  to  be  in  error 
in  stating  that  Theologians  have  demonstrated  in  many 


400 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


volumes  that  Monarchial  Episcopacy  is  the  true  and 
Scriptural  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity.  Where  are  these 
volumes,  and  who  are  these  theologians?  The  two  most 
learned  representatives  of  modern  ‘ Catholics  ’ are  Gore, 
and  Moberly,  yet  these  have  not  demonstrated  to  any  one 
but  their  own  school  of  thought  the  Divine  right  of  Mo- 
narchial Episcopacy.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  show  that  the  very  opposite  opinion  is  that  maintained 
by  the  majority  of  Anglican  scholars.  I mean  by  the 
opposite  opinion,  the  Republican  as  opposed  to  the  Mo- 
narchial Episcopate.  A Republican  form  of  the  Epis- 
copate offered  to  the  great  non-Episcopal  bodies  stands 
a fair  change  of  winning  consideration  at  their  hands.  In 
closing  the  third  part  of  my  essay,  I fully  defined  what  I 
meant  by  a Republican  Episcopate,  so  that  all  that  is 
necessary  for  me  to  do  here  is  to  suggest  some  method  by 
which  the  non-Episcopal  Churches  could  be  brought  into 
connection  with  the  Historic  Episcopate.  Bishop  Brown 
has  correctly  proposed  reordination,  but  how  is  this  to  be 
effected  ? By  what  form  of  service  can  this  end  be  accom- 
plished vsnthout  giving  needless  offence  to  the  Protestant 
Churches,  whose  present  Ministries  we  recognize  as  the 
equal  of  our  own  for  all  ministerial  fvmctions?  We  suggest 
two  forms.  ( 1 ) A Bishop  of  an  Historic  Church  laying 
his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  candidate  for  reordina- 
tion, shall  say,  “ Take  thou  legal  authority  to  execute  the 
office  of  (Deacon,  Presbyter,  or  Bishop)  in  any  Historic 
Church  or  Diocese  to  which  thou  shalt  be  lawfully  ap- 
pointed.” (2)  The  present  form  of  ordination  in  the  An- 


APPENDIX. 


401 


glican  Ordinal  as  there  worded  shall  be  that  used  in  the  re- 
spective cases  of  Deacon,  Presbyter,  and  Bishop,  except 
first,  that  the  words  “ in  the  Church  of  God,”  following 
the  particular  office  specified  shall  be  changed  into,  “in 
any  Historic  Church  of  God.”  No  question  of  Apostolic 
Succession,  as  that  phrase  is  understood  to  signify,  could 
possibly  enter  into  either  of  these  methods,  because  all  the 
authority  conferred  would  be  the  mere  ecclesiastical  right 
to  exercise  in  the  Historic  Church  the  ministerial  office 
already  possessed.  And  this  could  be  definitely  provided 
for  in  the  second  proposed  change,  viz.,  instead  of  the 
respective  forms  of  reading,  “ the  Office  of  Deacon,”  or 
“ the  Office  and  work  of  a Priest,”  or  “ of  a Bishop,”  they 
would  run,  "‘your  office  of  Deacon,”  “your  Office  and 
work  of  a Priest,”  or  “of  a Bishop,”  according  to  the 
Office  in  the  Ministry  to  which  the  candidate  for  reordina- 
tion had  already  been  ordained.  The  Republican  char- 
acter of  the  Episcopate  might  be  definitely  acknowledged 
by  the  Anglican  Church  by  inserting  into  her  service  for  the 
consecration  of  Bishops  a similar  explanation  of  the  Office 
of  Bishop  to  that  already  in  the  Methodist  service.  It 
runs,  “ This  service  is  not  to  be  understood  as  an  ordina- 
tion to  a higher  Order  in  the  Christian  Ministry,  beyond 
and  above  that  of  Elders  or  Presbyters,  but  a solemn 
and  fitting  consecration  for  the  special  and  most  sacred 
duties  of  Superintendency  in  the  Church.”  (Discipline 
M.  E.  Ch.,  p.  558.)  We  have  produced  abundant  evi- 
dence in  our  essay  to  show  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters 
form  but  one  Order  in  the  Christian  ministry,  and  that 


402 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


being  so,  a definite  statement  to  that  effect  would  alter 
nothing,  but  it  would  emphasize  the  true  Republican  char- 
acter of  the  Episcopate,  It  is  upon  this  character  of  the 
Episcopate  that  Bishop  Brown,  with  the  inspiration  of  a 
true  “seer,”  and  the  knowledge  of  a thorough  scholar,  has 
based  his  whole  plan  of  Christian  unity,  knowing  well 
that  a Monarchial  Episcopate  as  the  basis  of  such  unity 
has  no  chance  of  even  consideration  at  the  hands  of  non- 
Episcopal  Churches.  The  Bishop,  however,  has  wisely 
presented  his  plan  unencumbered  in  the  course  of  its  de- 
velopment by  any  detailed  references  to  authorities  upon 
which  it  is  founded.  To  supply  this,  and  thereby  to  show 
the  warrant  for  the  Bishop’s  view  of  the  true  character 
and  powers  of  the  Episcopate,  is  the  main  object  of  the 
following  essay,  a perusal  of  which  will  further  show  that 
the  Historic  Episcopate,  viewed  as  including,  and  as  con- 
stituted by,  an  unbroken  tactual  succession  of  Bishops 
from  the  Apostles  to  the  present  time,  is  the  chief  barrier 
to  Christian  unity.  Notwithstanding,  however,  this  Re- 
publican character  of  the  Episcopate  as  it  originally  existed 
down  to  324  A.  D.,  the  only  way  by  which  the  Historic 
Episcopate  can  be  secured  by  those  Churches  which  do 
not  possess  it,  is,  as  I have  already  intimated,  reordina- 
tion by  Bishops  who  are  themselves  members  of  the  His- 
toric Episcopate.  Had  all  the  Reformed  Churches  at 
the  Reformation  agreed  to  restore  the  original  Republican 
character  of  the  Episcopate,  and  so  appointed  Bishops 
after  the  manner  of  the  early  Churches  of  Rome  and 
Alexandria,  then  it  would  have  been  sufficient  for  their 


APPENDIX. 


403 


re-incorporation  into  the  Historic  Church  of  to-day  for  the 
Monarchial  Bishops  of  this  Church  to  offer  them  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship.  This  fellowship  greeting  would 
then  have  signified  that  these  Republican  Bishops  were 
as  true  Bishops  as  the  Monarchial  Bishops  of  the  Historic 
Church.  Most  of  these  Reformed  Churches,  however,  re- 
jected Episcopacy  entirely,  thus  the  only  possible  way  to 
unite  them  again  with  the  Historic  Episcopate  is  through 
reordination  by  Bishops  who  are  themselves  members  of 
an  Historic  Episcopate.  This  is  plainly  seen  by  the  noted 
scholar  and  representative  of  the  Congregational  Church, 
Dr.  Newman  Smythe,  who  has  lately  declared,  “ Episco- 
pacy holds  the  key  to  the  door  through  which  other 
Churches  may  be  invited  to  enter  into  a Catholicism  large 
enough  to  hold  them  all.”  (Passing  Protestantism  and 
Coming  Catholicism. ) This  Episcopacy  Dr.  Smythe  def- 
initely intimates  is  that  possessed  by  the  Anglican  Church, 
which  he  thus  sees  to  be  also  the  door  by  which  the  Prot- 
estant Churches  can  once  more  be  reunited  with  the  His- 
toric Episcopate.  But  how?  By  reordination  at  the 
hands  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Anglican  Church.  Not,  how- 
ever, on  the  ground  that  these  Bishops  possess  an  unbroken 
Apostolic  Succession,  for  this  he  correctly  repudiates,  but 
because  they  are  members  of  an  actual  Historic  Episco- 
pate. Further,  until  all  the  Historic  Churches,  have  come 
into  union,  including  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches,  for 
there  can  be  no  real  unity  with  these  left  out — Episcopal 
ordination  would  have  to  be  exclusively  maintained  by  all 
the  Churches  entering  a unity,  otherwise  an  insuperable 


404 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


barrier  would  be  created  to  the  future  coming  in  of  the 
Historic  Churches  still  outside.  When  all  shall  have 
come  in,  then  the  Republican  character  of  the  Episcopate 
could  be  restored  as  already  indicated,  this  Republican 
character  being  safeguarded  both  previously  and  subse- 
quently by  inserting  into  the  service  of  reordination  the 
explanation  previously  referred  to. 


I. 

THE  ORIGIN  AND  POWERS  OF  THE 
EPISCOPATE. 

All  scholars  agree  that  in  the  period  covered 
by  the  New  Testament,  the  terms  Presbyter  and 
Bishop  referred  to  one  and  the  same  person. 
Alluding  to  their  respective  positions,  which  might  be 
assumed  to  differ  owing  to  their  separate  titles.  Professor 
Gwatkin,  from  the  evidence  produced,  says,  “ The  general 
equivalence  of  the  two  offices  in  the  apostolic  age  seems 
undeniable,”  and  he  closes  an  exhaustive  enquiry  into  any 
possible  difference,  with  these  words,  “our  general  con- 
clusion is,  that  while  we  find  Deacons  and  Elders  (or 
Bishops  in  the  New  Testament  sense)  in  the  apostolic 
age,  there  is  no  clear  trace  of  Bishops  (in  the  later  sense), 
or  of  any  apostolic  ordinance  that  every  Church  was  to 


APPENDIX. 


405 


have  its  Bishop.”  (Bishop — Church  Government.  Hast- 
ings’ D.  B.) 

Canon  Sanday  tells  us  that  during  the  period  covered 
from  St.  Paul’s  speech  at  Miletus,  to  the  Epistle  of 
Clement  of  Rome,  and  possibly  to  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas  (cir.  A.  D.  140)  “the  terms  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byter were  applied  to  the  same  persons.”  Though  he 
adds,  " that  at  the  time  of  the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius,  i.  e., 
probably  about  110-117  A.  D.,  at  Antioch  in  Syria,  and 
in  some  of  the  Churches  in  Western  Asia  Minor,  there 
was  already  established  a Monarchial  Episcopate.” 
(The  Conception  of  Priesthood,  p.  61.) 

Now  the  above  agrees  with  the  following  statement  of 
the  English  Bishops  under  Henry  VIII,  in  referring  to  the 
original  establishment  of  the  permanent  offices  of  the 
Christian  ministry.  They  say — “ In  the  New  Testament 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinction  in 
Orders,  but  only  of  Deacons  or  Ministers,  and  of  Priests  or 
Bishops,”  adding — “of  these  two  Orders  only  Scripture 
maketh  express  mention.”  In  alluding  to  the  later  dis- 
tinction between  Bishops  and  Presbyters  as  indicated  by 
Ignatius,  Canon  Sanday  says,  “ How  the  transition  was 
brought  about  we  can  only  guess.”  (ib.,  p.  61.)  How- 
ever it  was  brought  about,  the  English  Bishops  referred  to 
definitely  attributed  it  to  human  origin.  Repudiating,  as 
unwarranted,  the  action  of  the  Popes  in  assuming  the  title 
of  “ Universal  Bishop,”  or  of  “ the  head  of  all  Priests,”  or 
of  “ the  highest  Priest,”  they  say,  “ there  is  no  mention 
made  neither  in  Scripture,  neither  in  the  writings  of  any  au- 


406 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


thentical  doctor  or  author  of  the  Church,  being  within  the 
time  of  the  Apostles,  that  Christ  did  ever  make  or  institute 
any  distinction  or  difference  to  be  in  the  pre-eminence  of 
power,  or  order,  or  jurisdiction  between  the  Apostles 
themselves  or  between  the  Bishops  themselves,  but  that 
they  were  all  equal  m power,  order,  and  jurisdiction. 
And  that  there  is  now,  and  since  the  time  of  the  Apostles, 
any  such  diversity  or  difference  among  Bishops,  it  was  de- 
vised by  the  ancient  fathers  of  the  Primitive  Church,  for 
the  conservation  of  good  order  and  unity  of  the  Catholic 
Church  ...  an  order  of  degrees  to  be  among 
Bishops  . . . and  so  ordained  some  to  be  Patri- 

archs, some  to  be  Primates,  some  to  be  Metropolitans, 
some  to  be  Archbishops,  some  to  be  Bishops.”  (Formu- 
laries of  the  Faith  of  the  Reign  of  Henry  VIII,  p.  118; 
cf.  105,  281  ; Bsp.  Short  Hist.  Ch.  Eng.,  pp.  132-252.) 
But  this  clear  statement  of  the  case  by  our  own  Bishops 
at  the  commencement  of  the  Reformation  movement  in  the 
Church  of  England,  is  merely  an  endorsement  of  the  asser- 
tion of  St.  Jerome,  that  “ before  the  devil  had  incited  men 
to  make  division  in  religion  . . . Churches  were 

governed  by  the  common  council  of  Presbyters.  But 
afterwards  it  was  everywhere  decreed  that  one  person 
elected  from  the  Presbyters  in  each  Church,  should  be 
placed  over  the  others.  So  let  Bishops  know  that  they 
are  above  Presbyters  rather  by  election  than  by  divine 
appointment.”  (Powell — ^Apostolic  Succession,  pp.  93- 
95 ; Allen — Christian  Institutions,  p.  7 ; Lightfoot — 
Essay  C.  M.)  But  if  we  accept  Jerome’s  statement,  en- 


APPENDIX. 


407 


dorsed  as  we  have  seen  by  our  own  Bishops  of  the  period 
mentioned,  that  a separate  Episcopate  was  the  result  of 
an  arrangement  made  by  the  Churches  themselves  as  a 
matter  of  expediency,  what  are  we  to  make  of  the  tradi- 
tion that  St.  John  was  its  author?  I believe  that  this 
tradition  originated  in  the  fact  recorded  by  Irenaeus,  that 
in  his  youth  he  had  seen  and  listened  to  Polycarp,  who 
had  known  and  conversed  with  St.  John  and  others  who 
had  seen  the  Lord.  From  this  he  drew  the  conclusion 
that  Polycarp  had  been  made  Bishop  of  Smyrna  by 
Apostles.  He  does  not  say  by  St.  John,  as  he  surely 
would  have  done  had  the  tradition  to  this  effect  been  cor- 
rect, for  who  would  have  been  more  likely  to  know  and 
to  repeat  it  than  Irenaeus  himself.  Omitting  all  reference 
to  St.  John,  he  says  simply,  that  Polycarp  had  been  “ by 
Apostles  in  Asia,  appointed  Bishop  of  the  Church  of 
Smyrna.”  (Her.  III.  3,  4;  Let.  to  Flor.)  We  next  have 
Tertullian  informing  us  on  the  authority  of  the  Church  of 
Smyrna  itself,  that  John  was  the  Apostle  who  had  ap- 
pointed Poly  carp  to  be  its  Bishop.  But  then  Tertullian 
mentions  in  the  same  context  that  in  like  manner  the 
register  of  the  Church  of  Rome  recorded  that  Peter  had 
made  Clement  its  first  Bishop,  although  Puller,  with  An- 
glican and  most  other  scholars,  ascribes  this  belief  to  “ the 
Clementine  Romance.”  (Prim.  Saints  and  SR,  p.  48; 
Salmon  Infal.  Ch.,  p.  361  ; Ter.  Pres.  Her.,  32.)  What 
further  warrant,  therefore,  have  we  for  accepting  as  correct 
the  tradition  of  Polycarp’s  apostolic  appointment  as 
Bishop  of  Smyrna,  or  as  a Bishop  at  all,  any  more  than 


408 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


for  the  tradition  stated  in  the  case  of  Clement?  None  at 
all,  consequently,  on  this  ground  alone  we  might  dismiss 
it  as  lacking  evidence.  But  there  is  further  reason  for 
rejecting  it.  Ignatius  in  his  letter  to  Polycarp  is  silent  as 
to  the  source  of  Polycarp’s  Episcopate,  although  he  writes 
to  him  as  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna.  Nor  does  he 
mention  St.  John  in  any  of  his  letters  he  addresses  to  the 
very  Churches  in  which  later  tradition  reported  that  St. 
John  had  placed  Bishops,  and  this  although  he  makes 
special  reference  to  obedience  to  be  paid  to  their  Bishops. 
Indeed,  when  producing  authority  for  his  advocacy  of 
Episcopal  supremacy,  he  definitely  states,  “ I knew  nothing 
of  any  man.  But  the  Spirit  spake,  saying  on  this  wise: 
Do  nothing  without  the  Bishop.”  (Epis.  Phil.)  In  view 
of  all  these  facts,  we  are  not  surprised  that  Professor 
Gwatkin  concludes  that  Ignatius  knew  of  no  institution 
of  Bishops  by  Apostles.  (Ch.  Gov.  HDB.)  Finally, 
Polycarp  himself,  in  his  letter  to  the  Church  of  Philippi, 
makes  no  mention  of  St.  John,  although  he  enjoins  its 
members  to  adopt  the  patience  of  “ Paul,  and  the  rest 
of  the  Apostles.”  No  wonder  then  that  Canon  Bruce 
declines  to  accept  the  tradition  that  St.  John  Introduced 
Episcopacy  into  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  and  al- 
though Lightfoot,  followed  by  Gwatkin,  connects  its  in- 
troduction with  this  Apostle,  the  facts  mentioned  amply 
warrant  Canon  Bruce’s  conclusion.  This  last  Anglican 
writer  is  not  alone  in  the  view  he  adopts.  Principal  Lind- 
say also  rejects  Lightfoot’s  view,  asserting  not  only  “ that 
the  Apostles  did  not  prescribe  any  particular  form  of 


APPENDIX. 


409 


Church  government,”  but  that  “ the  indication  is  all  the 
other  way,”  and  he  sees  in  the  change  which  Canon  San- 
day  thought  we  could  only  guess  at,  a transition  brought 
about  “ without  any  Apostolic  sanction,  in  virtue  of  the 
power  lying  within  the  community.”  (The  Church  and 
the  Ministry  in  the  Early  Centuries,  pp.  132-210.) 

Conceding,  however,  though  merely  for  the  sake  of 
argument,  that  this  tradition  has  some  basis  of  truth,  it 
militates  against  the  theory  that  Episcopacy  was  of  general 
apostolic  introduction,  since  it  indicates  clearly  that  at 
the  end  of  the  apostolic  age,  when  St.  John  was  most 
probably  the  only  surviving  Apostle,  the  office  of  Bishop 
had  not  previously)  been  called  into  existence.  Even  when 
instituted,  its  originators  did  not  think  it  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  leave  any  direction  touching  its  general  accept- 
ance, as  Lightfoot  himself  concedes;  while  long  after  St. 
John’s  death  there  were  many  Churches  outside  the  imme- 
diate sphere  of  his  influence  that  were  still  governed  by 
bodies  of  Presbyters  without  any  superior  officer,  such  as 
the  Churches  of  Rome,  Philippi,  and  Corinth  (Words- 
worth— MG,  p.  136;  Jacobs — The  Ecclesiastical  Polity 
of  the  New  Tes.,  pp.  76-78;  Lightfoot — Essay  CM.) 
The  tradition  in  question,  therefore,  even  if  authentic,  and 
there  is  ample  warrant  for  rejecting  it,  is  of  little  value  as 
evidence  in  support  of  the  theory  of  the  divine  right  of 
Episcopal  government,  a theory  rejected,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  Jerome,  and  our  own  Bishops  of  the  period  named. 
The  conclusion  is,  that  even  if  we  concede  St.  John  in- 
troduced Episcopacy,  in  other  regions  the  Church  was  at 


410  THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 

first  governed  in  its  local  and  permanent  Ministry  by  a 
body  of  Presbyters  of  equal  authority,  and  while  subse- 
quently the  whole  Church  adopted  Episcopacy,  such  an 
acceptance  was  entirely  a matter  of  choice,  a right  be- 
longing inherently  to  the  Churches  making  this  change. 
Thus  Principal  Lindsay  is  still  justified  in  asserting  that 
this  change  in  a college  of  Elders  without  a President  to 
a college  with  a Bishop  at  its  head,  took  place  “ without 
any  apostolic  sanction,”  but  rather  ” In  virtue  of  the 
power  lying  within  the  community.”'  If  this  be  so,  if  with 
these  facts  evidently  clearly  in  mind,  Lightfoot  contended 
that  “ It  is  plainly  competent  for  the  Church  at  any  given 
time  to  entrust  a particular  office  with  larger  powers,  as 
emergency  may  require,”  (CM)  the  Church,  or  any  por- 
tion of  the  Church,  as  things  are  at  present  constituted, 
has  full  authority  to  withdraw  those  powers,  consequently, 
orthodox  bodies  of  Christians  possessing  the  original  Pres- 
byterate  of  the  Church  may  rightfully  claim  to  possess 
as  valid  and  as  regular  a Ministry  as  any  Historic  Epis- 
copal Church. 

Perhaps  the  general  mistaken  notion  amongst  Anglicans 
with  regard  to  the  assumed  inherently  exclusive  powers  of 
the  Episcopate,  is  largely  the  result  of  a wide-spread  error 
as  to  the  actual  reading  of  the  opening  clause  of  the 
Preface  to  our  Ordinal,  which  is  frequently  quoted  as 
referring  to  “three  orders.”  Harold  Browne,  in  his 
“ 39  Articles,”  says,  “ In  1 549,  Cranmer  and  twelve 
other  divines  drew  up  the  Ordinal  where  it  is  declared, 
that  ‘ from  the  Apostles’  times,  there  have  been  three 


APPENDIX. 


411 


Orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ’s  Church.’  ” (p.  559.) 

Denny  has  “ these  three  Orders.”  (Anglican  Orders,  p. 
93,  S.  P.  C.  K.)  Dr.  Fulton  so  quoted  it  in  the  Church 
Standard,  April  5,  1902,  p.  855,  a mistake  frequently 
committed  even  as  we  have  seen  in  important  works  by 
leading  scholars.  But  the  fact  is  that  the  word  three  does 
not  occur  in  this  clause,  nor  in  this  preface  at  all,  the 
actual  wording  being  “ these  orders.”  (First  Prayer 
Book,  Ed.  VI — Ancient  and  Modern  Lib.  Theo.  Lit.) 
It  is  evidently  owing  to  this  wide-spread  error  that  even 
Evan  Daniel,  in  analyzing  this  Preface,  represents  the  first 
clause  as  follows — “ From  the  time  of  the  Apostles  there 
have  been  three  orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ’s  Church.” 
(The  Prayer  Book,  Its.  His.  etc.,  p.  423.) 

The  fact  is,  there  are  but  two  orders  of  Ministers  in 
Christ’s  Church,  as  has  already  been  intimated  in  the 
quotation  from  Jerome,  and  that  from  our  own  Bishops 
as  already  given.  Lord  King  was  absolutely  correct  when 
he  stated  that  ‘‘it  is  expressly  said  by  the  ancients,  that 
there  were  but  two  distinct  ecclesiastical  orders,  viz.. 
Bishops  and  Deacons,  or  Presbyters  and  Deacons;  and 
if  there  were  but  these  two.  Presbyters  cannot  be  distinct 
from  Bishops,  for  then  there  would  be  three.”  (The 
Primitive  Church,  73.)  But  Evan  Daniel,  while  ac- 
knowledging that  in  the  New  Testament  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  are  represented  as  belonging  to,  or  forming 
but  one  Order,  nevertheless,  attempts  to  show  that  ‘‘  The 
offices  of  Bishop  and  Elder  appear  to  have  become  dis- 
tinct even  in  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles,”  and  as  evidence 


412 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


to  this  end  he  points  to  the  position  held  by  Timothy  and 
Titus,  respectively,  (pp.  419,  420.)  But  here  he  is  not 
only  opposed  by  some  of  the  best  modern  Anglican 
scholars,  such  as  Professor  Gwatkin  (Ch.  Gov.  HDB)  ; 
Canon  Venables  (Episcopacy — Encyc.  Brit.)  ; and  Bp. 
Lightfoot  (Essay  CM),  but  the  English  Bishops  already 
quoted  view  Timothy  and  Titus  as  raised  to  the  Ministry 
by  “the  authority  of  Priesthood”  (ib.  p.  278),  not 
Episcopacy.  Eurther,  Bishop  Harold  Browne  shows  that 
the  majority  of  the  Fathers  have  held  that  there  are  but 
two  orders  in  the  Christian  ministry,  Bishops  or  Priests, 
and  Deacons  or  Ministers,  (ib.,  p.  555.)  Bishop  Short 
also  showed  this  to  be  the  belief  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Church  (ib.,  pp.  132,  252),  while  it  is  the  view  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  herself  to-day,  as  always.  (Evan  Daniel, 
ib.,  p.  423.)  We  may  therefore  dismiss  as  unwarranted, 
all  attempts  to  make  the  Christian  ministry  consist  of  three 
Orders.  It  actually  consists  of  but  ttvo,  which  brings  us 
to  consider  the  assumed  special  and  exclusive  powers  of 
the  Episcopate. 

The  assertion  that  the  power  to  ordain  to  the  Christian 
ministry  belongs  by  divine  right  exclusively  to  the  Epis- 
copate, is  a modern  revival  of  a theory  of  the  Episcopate 
first  propounded  by  Cyprian  (A.  D.  247-248),  but  not 
authoritatively  decreed  until  the  Council  of  Paris  A.  D. 
829,  maintained  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  exclusively  given 
at  Ordination,  through  the  Bishop.  The  ruling  of  this 
council,  however,  did  not  affect  the  Church  at  large,  as 
we  shall  see  presently.  Bishop  Wordsworth  would  have 


APPENDIX. 


413 


US  believe  that  the  validity  of  Presbyterial  ordination  was 
decided  in  the  negative  in  the  case  of  Ischyras  and  others 
ordained  by  Colluthus.  But  this  settlement  (A.  D.  324) , 
was  not  touching  the  validity  of  Presbyters  to  ordain,  but 
concerning  acts  done  under  unlawful  conditions.  (Words- 
worth, MG,  pp.  138,  169;  Colluthus — SDCA.) 

The  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  was  first  authoritatively 
decreed  by  the  Church  of  Rome  at  the  council  of  Trent, 
A.  D.  1545-1560,  whose  ruling  first  found  definite  foot- 
ing in  England  in  A.  D.  1 549,  when  Bancroft  preached 
his  famous  sermon  in  which  he  claimed  that  “ Bishops 
were  a distinct  order  from  Priests,  and  had  superiority 
over  them  Jure  Divino  and  direct  from  God 
that  the  denial  of  it  was  heresy.”  (Neil  His.  Pur.  VoL 
I.,  p.  262.)  This  did  not  pass  unchallenged,  however,  as 
it  was  absolutely  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Anglican 
Reformers,  and  only  finally  succeeded  in  becoming  the 
recognized  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  in  A.  D. 
1661,  when  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  was  revised  to 
emphasize  this  new  doctrine.  Before  that  time,  as  Bishop 
Barry  concedes  in  his  Teacher’s  Prayer  Book,  men  having 
merely  Presbyterian  Ordination  were  allowed  to  minister 
in  our  Church,  Lord  Bacon  complained  at  the  close  of 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth  that  this  doctrine  was  being  promul- 
gated. Notwithstanding  it  continued,  and  in  A.  D.  1593, 
Bilson  asserted  the  full  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession 
(Wakefield  His.  Ch.  Eng.  p.  358.)  In  1604,  Laud 
was  reproved  by  the  University  of  Oxford  for  maintaining 
in  his  exercise  for  Bachelor  of  Divinity,  that  there  could 


414 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


be  no  true  Church  without  Bishops.  To  him  we  owe  the 
phrase  nullus  episcopus,  nulla  ecclesia,  which,  however,  is 
but  another  way  of  stating  Cyprian’s  maxim,  “ The  Bishop 
is  in  the  Church,  and  the  Church  is  in  the  Bishop.”  (Epis. 
Ixvi,  8.)  Still,  this  was  Cyprian’s  own  opinion,  which 
was  not  shared  universally,  and  even  when  publicly  main- 
tained, as  we  have  seen,  it  was  not  till  the  Council  of 
Trent  that  Rome  endorsed  this  ruling.  In  the  meantime, 
Anglican  writers  like  Hall  and  Chillingworth  put  forth 
their  respective  works  on  “ Episcopacy  of  Divine  Right.” 
and  “ Divine  Institution  of  Episcopacy,”  until  all  this  is 
so  taken  for  granted  with  us,  that  our  leading  paper.  The 
Guardian,  does  not  scruple  to  find  fault  with  one  of  our 
own  Bishops  (Perowne — Sept.  28,  1892),  in  the  follow- 
ing words,  “ If  the  Bishop  of  Worcester  had  been  content 
to  say  that  he  did  not  know  whether  Episcopacy  was  of  the 
esse  or  of  the  bene  esse  of  a Church,  we  should  have  no 
criticism  to  make  of  his  statement.  It  is  with  his  readiness 
to  pronounce  that  it  has  to  do  only  with  the  bene  esse  that 
we  find  fault,  and  we  do  so  because  such  a declaration 
seems  to  us  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  jealous  adherence 
to  a policy  derived  from  apostolic  direction.”  The 
Church  of  England  has  traveled  a long  way  since  Arch- 
bishop Whitgift  declared,  “ notwithstanding  government, 
or  some  kind  of  government,  may  be  part  of  the  Church, 
yet  it  is  not  such  a part  of  the  Church’s  essence  and  being, 
but  that  it  may  be  the  Church  of  Christ  without  this  or 
that  kind  of  government.”  (Works,  p.  1 84,  vol.  I.,  P.  S.) . 


APPENDIX. 


415 


Far  as  we  have  journeyed  from  this  view,  there  are  not 
wanting  men  who  will  yet  check  the  utterly  unwarranted 
course  taken  by  the  Anglican  Church  perhaps  more  ag- 
gressively to-day  than  ever  before.  The  present  Bishop 
of  Durham  was  reported  in  The  Guardian  for  Jan,  22, 
1902,  as  saying  in  an  address  at  the  Newcastle  Y.  M.  C. 
A.,  “ he  was  a believer  in  a moderate  Episcopacy,  and  was 
a Bishop  himself  holding  an  office  which  he  could  not 
possibly  have  accepted  if  he  had  not  thought  it  according 
to  the  will  of  God  that  he  might  take  it;  but  he  held  that 
it  was  possible  to  think  all  that,  and  to  say  a great  deal 
more  than  that  about  it,  and  yet  be  absolutely  true,  as  a 
son  of  the  English  Church,  in  repudiating  the  tremendous 
position  of  ‘ nullus  episcopus,  nulla  ecclesia'  He  repudi- 
ated that  position,  and  he  knew  that  he  was  a good  Angli- 
can when  he  did  so.”  Here  is  Bishop  Moule  supporting 
the  view  of  Bishop  Perowne,  which  opinion  is  endorsed 
by  Canon  Sanday,  perhaps  the  most  widely  recognized 
English  theologian  of  his  day.  He  writes,  “ It  should  be 
distinctly  borne  in  mind  that  the  more  sweeping  refusal 
to  recognize  the  non-Eplscopal  Reformed  Churches  is  not, 
and  can  never  be  made  a doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land; too  many  of  her  most  representative  men  have  not 
shared  in  it.”  (The  Conception  of  the  Priesthood,  p.  95.) 
No,  it  can  never  be  made  a doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England,  because  it  is  absolutely  contrary  to  the  teaching 
of  its  Reformers,  who  held,  that  the  Episcopal  form 
of  government  i$  the  best  and  most  Scriptural,  meaning 


416 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


by  that,  best  agreeing  with  what  we  find  foreshadowed 
in  Scripture,  without  it  being  either  taught  or  even  inti- 
mated there  as  a possible  future  method  of  government. 
Thus,  while  its  adoption  is  agreeable  with  what  we  find 
in  Scripture,  it  cannot  be  viewed  as  binding  upon  any 
Church  desiring  some  other  mode  of  government.  It  is 
a mere  matter  of  choice,  as  was  so  plainly  stated  by  Whit- 
gift  in  his  reply  to  Travers,  “ It  is  plain  that  any  one 
certain  form  or  kind  of  external  government  perpetually 
to  be  observed,  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  prescribed  to  the 
Church.”  (ib.)  Nor  let  it  be  thought  that  all  this  re- 
presents the  thought  of  a past  age,  or  of  a few  men  of  an 
extreme  party  bias.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  expression 
of  our  most  sober  scholarship  as  represented  by  such  men 
as  Professor  Gwatkin,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History, 
Cambridge,  England,  who  writes;  “Though  the  Lord 
commanded  His  disciples  to  form  a society,  there  is  no 
indication  that  either  He  or  His  Apostles  ever  prescribed 
any  definite  form  for  it.”  (Bishop  HDB.)  He  adds, 
touching  the  Elders  left  alone  after  the  dying  out  of  the 
unlocal  Ministry,  that  is.  Apostles,  Prophets,  Teachers, 
(Acts  xiii,  1,3)  “ they  would  act  alone  in  the  institution 
to  local  office.”  That  they  did  so  is  proved  by  the  state- 
ment of  Jerome  to  the  effect,  that  to  the  time  of  Diony- 
sius (A.  D.  249-265)  the  Alexandrian  Presbyters  al- 
ways appointed  their  own  Bishops,  Llghtfoot  seeing  here 
consecration  as  well  as  appointment  (Essay  CM),  a con- 
clusion made  almost  certain  by  the  directions  of  the 
Canons  of  Hippolytus,  from  whose  ruling  Prlncipd  Liod- 


APPENDIX. 


417 


say  rightly  claims  that  a Presbyter  could  ordain  a Bishop. 
(Wordsworth,  MC,  pp.  128,  136;  Lindsay,  CM,  p. 
246.) 

Here  we  must  call  attention  to  an  elaborate  review  of 
this  whole  question  undertaken  by  the  late  Dr.  Fulton  in 
a series  of  articles  published  in  The  Church  Standard 
for  1902  (March — May.)  Unfortunately  these  papers 
were  written  with  a carelessness  and  an  unwarranted  as- 
surance not  usually  visible  in  the  statements  of  one  who 
was  justly  recognized  as  a scholar.  In  the  issue  of  May 
17th,  he  wrote:  “The  record  of  the  New  Testament 
shows  that,  certainly  in  some  Churches,  and  therefore 
probably  in  others,  the  threefold  Ministry  was  either  in- 
stituted by  the  Apostles  or  came  into  existence  with  their 
sanction.”  From  his  previous  article  in  the  issue  of  March 
15th,  we  know  he  referred  to  the  appointment  of  Timothy 
and  Titus  by  St.  Paul  to  certain  work.  He  wrote,  “ St. 
Timothy  is  settled  as  the  ruling  Minister  in  a single  city 
— the  prototype  of  that  See  Episcopate  which  speedily 
became  normal  throughout  the  Church ; while,  in  the  com- 
mission of  St.  Titus  we  have  the  first  and  only  Scriptural 
example  of  a member  of  the  same  Ruling  Order  holding 
jurisdiction  over  a whole  island,  the  prototype  of  a Terri- 
torial Episcopate  . . . Of  the  spread  of  this  same 

Ruling  Order  within  the  apostolic  period,  and  clearly 
under  apostolic  sanction,  the  New  Testament  furnishes 
another  plain  proof,”  and  he  refers  here  to  the  Angels  of 
the  Churches  in  Rev.  1.  Against  this  unwarranted  view  is 
firrayed  the  best  scholarship,  headed  by  Lightfoot,  who 


418 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


with  regard  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  says,  “ St.  Paul’s  own 
language  implies  that  the  position  which  they  held  was 
temporary.”  (CM.)  Professor  Gwatkin  says,  “ Neither 
Timothy  nor  Titus  is  a permanent  official,  and  Titus  is 
not  connected  with  any  particular  city.  They  are  rather 
temporary  vicars  apostolic,  sent  on  special  missions  to 
Ephesus  and  Crete.  The  letters  by  which  we  know  them 
are  (2  Tim.  4.  9;  Tit.  3,  12)  letters  of  recall,  and  there 
is  no  serious  evidence  that  they  ever  saw  Ephesus  or  Crete 
again  . . . the  angels  are  praised  and  blamed  for 

doings  of  their  Churches  in  a way  no  literal  Bishop  justly 
can  be.  It  is  safer  to  take  them  as  personifications  of  the 
Churches.”  (Ch.  Gov — HBD.)  The  foregoing  is  the 
conclusion  of  most  scholars.  Episcopal  and  non-Episcopal, 
which  entirely  disposes  of  Dr.  Eul ton’s  assured  basis  of 
the  origin  of  the  threefold  Ministry.  Taking  his  stand 
on  the  position  which  he  unwarrantably  gave  to  Timothy, 
Titus,  and  the  Angels  of  the  Churches,  he  declared,  “ It 
may  fairly  be  claimed,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of 
the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  that  not  only  from,  but  during, 
the  Apostles’  times,  there  were  three  clearly  distinguish- 
able orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ’s  Church.”  The  fact 
is,  that  there  are  not  three  orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ’s 
Church,  despite  the  statement  in  the  Preface  to  our  Or- 
dinal, Lightfoot  himself,  while  he  maintained  the  accuracy 
of  this  Preface,  asserting  that  between  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters there  is  “ a substantial  identity  of  Orders.”  (CM.) 
For  the  meaning  of  the  term  Orders  in  this  Preface,  Cran- 


APPENDIX. 


419 


mer’s  opinion  must  be  consulted  in  his  works,  where  we 
shall  see  that  he  uses  the  term  “order”  as  synonymous 
with  office  or  degree.  He  himself  wrote  this  Preface,  and 
he  had  definitely  declared  his  belief  in  only  two  Orders, 
for  he  was  one  of  the  Bishops  who  composed  the  Formu- 
laries of  Faith  in  which  this  belief  is  stated. 

And  now  we  have  to  call  attention  to  another  glaring 
mistake  made  by  eminent  Anglican  writers.  Bishop 
Harold  Browne  asserts,  “ there  is  no  example  of  ordina- 
tion being  entrusted  to  Presbyters  only.”  (39  Articles 
p.  553.)  Bingham  made  the  same  statement.  On  the 
contrary,  however,  there  are  many  instances  of  this.  Hatch 
(Organ.  Early  Chris.  Chs.  p.  1 10.)  ; Wordsworth  (MG, 
p.  166);  Encyc.  Brit.  (Celestine  V),  give  examples 
where  Orders  have  been  conferred  by  Presbyters  and 
others  apart  from  Bishops.  The  famous  scholar  Dean 
Field,  of  Gloucester,  maintained  that  “the  power  of  or- 
dination exists  in  the  Presbyter;”  (Bsp.  Dowden-Theol. 
Lit.  Ch.  Eng.,  p.  80)  while  Bishop  Wordsworth  declines 
to  acquiesce  in  the  position  that  their  co-operation  in  or- 
dination is  a mere  witnessing  to  the  fact.  ( MG,  p.  1 69. ) 
Bishop  Lightfoot,  commenting  on  the  ruling  of  the  council 
of  Ancyra  (A.  D.  314),  shows  that  at  that  time,  ordina- 
tion by  Presbyters  only  depended  upon  Episcopal  sanc- 
tion. (CM.)  But  the  ruling  of  the  Canons  of  Hippo- 
lytus  shows  unmistakably  that  Presbyters  did  ordain  alone 
without  the  presence  of  a Bishop,  nor  must  we  neglect 
to  add,  that  Bishop  Wordsworth  can  say  no  more  of  this 


420 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


presence  than  that  it  was  “ necessary,  at  any  rate  after 
the  decision  in  the  case  of  Colluthus  in  A.  D.  324.” 
(MG,  p.  169.) 

Regarding  these  Canons,  however.  Dr.  Fulton,  discuss- 
ing the  question  of  the  exclusive  right  of  a Bishop  to  or- 
dain, claimed  that  one  of  the  very  oldest  canons  which 
has  come  down  to  us  from  the  Primitive  Church,  known  as 
“ apostolical,”  reads:  “ Let  a Bishop  be  ordained  by  two 
or  three  Bishops.”  He  quotes  Beveridge  as  asserting  that 
this  code,  “ The  Apostolic  Canons  ” — was  collected  sub- 
stantially in  its  present  form  before  the  termination  of  the 
second  century.  Dr.  Fulton  expressed  himself  as  of  the 
opinion  that  the  canon  quoted  was  amongst  the  oldest  of 
the  code.  He  was  wrong,  however,  all  through.  Bishop 
Wordsworth  shows  that  the  “ Apostolic  Canons  ” cannot 
be  earlier  than  A.  D.  341,  or  much  before  A.  D.  400. 
Now  it  is  true  that  part  of  this  ancient  document  goes 
back  into  an  earlier  age,  somewhere  between  A.  D.  1 40 
and  1 80,  but  the  canon  in  question  formed  no  part  of  this 
earlier  portion.  Such  a rule,  while  practiced  to  some 
extent  in  the  third  century,  is  first  found  formulated  in  the 
canons  of  the  council  of  Arles,  A.  D.  314.  Had  Dr. 
Fulton  only  looked  more  thoroughly  into  the  matter,  he 
never  would  have  made  such  a mistake  as  he  unwittingly 
committed.  In  the  earlier  fragment  of  the  later  canons, 
there  is  a reference  to  “ three  men  ” as  appointed  in  the 
little  congregation  to  assist  in  selecting  a Pastor.  In 
them,  Harnack  finds  ” the  anticipation  of  the  much  later 
rule  that  the  consecration  of  a Bishop  requires  the  pres- 


APPENDIX, 


421 


ence  and  co-operation  of  the  three  neighboring  Bishops.” 
(Lindsay,  ib,,  p.  1 78.  ff.)  There  is,  however,  a document 
dating  from  the  end  of  the  second  century.  It  is  the 
lost  Roman  Order,  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  which  Dr. 
Fulton  fails  to  treat  with  the  weight  of  importance  it  calls 
for,  while  he  entirely  misstates  its  significance.  It  is 
a document  which  shows  that  there  was  as  yet  no  differ- 
ence recognized  in  the  one  order  of  Presbyter-Bishops. 
It  directs  that  there  shall  be  a Bishop  to  whom  the  exercise 
of  ordaining  shall  belong,  as  this  is  not  permitted  to  Pres- 
byters, because  the  power  of  ordination  is  not  given  to 
him.  (i.  e..  The  Presbyter.)  But  it  must  be  noted,  that 
in  case  of  the  election  of  a Bishop  over  the  body  of  Pres- 
byter-Bishops, one  of  themselves  is  to  be  chosen  to  perform 
the  act  of  ordination.  In  the  words  of  Principal  Lindsay, 
to  which  I have  already  referred,  “ one  of  the  Bishops 
or  one  of  the  Elders  of  the  congregation,  was  selected  to 
perform  the  act  of  ordination,”  owing  to  which  he  says 
in  his  “ index,”  under  “ Elder,”  “ could  ordain  a Bishop;” 
and  under  ” Bishop,”  “ ordained  by  Elders,”  p.  246.  We 
see  therefore,  that  notwithstanding  the  statement  respect- 
ing the  power  of  ordination  not  being  given  to  a Pres- 
byter, we  are  not  to  infer  from  this  that  a Presbyter  never 
possessed  the  power  and  right  to  ordain.  On  the  contrary, 
we  see  here  a plain  indication  that  a power  once  belonging 
to  Presbyters,  and  still  to  be  exercised  by  them  in  the  case 
of  an  ordination  of  a Preslding-Bishop,  had  at  some  time 
been  restricted  to  the  latter,  except  when  he  himself  was 


422 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


the  person  to  be  ordained.  Tliat  w^e  are  here  corrrect  is 
seen  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  ordained  equally  by  the 
Presbyters  as  by  St.  Paul.  (I  Tim.  iv:14;  II  Tim.  i:6.) 
Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  the  New  Testament  indi- 
cates by  this  incident  that  there  is  but  one  ordination  to 
the  local  Ministry  proper,  the  Deacons  not  being  Minis- 
ters in  the  sense  of  the  Elders.  Timothy  was  not  or- 
dained twice,  so  that  whatever  was  conferred  upon  him 
by  which  he  became  entitled  to  ordain  to  the  Ministry, 
had  been  conferred  equally  by  Presbyters  as  by  an 
Apostle.  It  follows  from  this  that  Presbyters  have  a share 
in  the  bestowal  of  an  office  to  which  the  function  of  ordi- 
nation belongs.  This  being  so,  it  follows  logically  that 
they  themselves  possess  the  right  and  power  to  ordain. 
That  they  did  exercise  this  power  is  proved  by  the  canons 
of  Hippolytus ; the  practice  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria ; 
and  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Ancyra.  Ignatius  tells 
us,  that  apart  from  the  Bishop  “it  is  not  lawful  to  bap- 
tize,” etc.  (Epis.  Smyrneans.)  But  upon  what  author- 
ity ? Philip  knew  of  no  such  restriction  when  he  baptized 
the  Samaritans  (Acts  viii,  12).  Ignatius  tells  us  him- 
self, that  it  was  not  owing  to  any  man’s  influence,  but  to 
that  of  the  Spirit  (Epis.  Phil.).  We  see  therefore  that 
the  restriction  of  ordination  to  Bishops,  as  in  the  case  of 
Baptism,  was  the  outcome  of  the  growth  of  the  Episco- 
pate as  differentiated  from  the  Presbyterate,  and  not  of 
an  apostolic  action  or  influence.  We  have  thus  arrived  at 
the  point  when  it  may  be  asked — ^What  is  the  actual  value 
of  Episcopacy,  since  under  the  title  of  “ the  Historic  Epis- 


APPENDIX. 


423 


copate,”  it  has  been  put  forward  by  the  Bishops  of  the 
Anglican  Communion  as  a sine  qua  non  to  Christian  union 
(The  Quadrilateral)  ? 

First,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that, 
owing  to  the  phrase  “ the  Historic  Episcopate,”  there  is  an 
added  feature  to  be  considered,  as  it  is  not  merely  with 
Episcopacy  qua  Episcopacy  that  we  have  here  mostly  to 
deal,  but  with  Episcopacy  in  its  historic  character.  Eor 
the  sake  of  clearness  we  shall  therefore  first  deal  with 
Episcopacy  as  Episcopacy,  and  then  with  Episcopacy  in 
that  historic  transmission  owing  to  which  it  has  been 
termed  the  “ Historic  ” Episcopate. 

In  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  American  Bishops  to 
the  General  Convention  of  1 886,  they  included  the  Epis- 
copate as  amongst  the  principles  of  Order  “ committed 
by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  to  the  Church  unto  the  end 
of  the  world,  and,  therefore,  incapable  of  compromise  or 
surrender.”  These  are  weighty  words  coming  from  such 
a source,  and  yet,  unless  we  are  mistaken,  from  the  evi- 
dence produced  in  this  paper  it  would  seem  that  the  Epis- 
copate was  neither  given  by  Christ  nor  His  Apostles, 
but  rather  by  the  Holy  Ghost  acting  at  first  through  in- 
dividuals, next  through  separate  Churches,  and  finally 
through  the  whole  Church  by  general  councils.  Thus 
we  have  to  this  end,  first  the  action  of  Ignatius,  then  of 
Churches  like  those  of  Rome  and  Alexandria,  and  finally 
of  councils  like  those  of  324  and  325  A.  D.  Episcopacy 
being  thus  merely  a matter  of  evolution  through  second- 
ary causes,  there  is,  consequently,  no  necessity  whatever 


424 


THE  level  plan  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


to  view  it  as  a method  of  Church  government  or  Order 
obligatory  to  the  end  of  the  world,  or  indeed  beyond  the 
time  when  it  might  warrantably  be  viewed  as  having 
failed  to  meet  the  end  for  which  it  was  instituted.  At 
the  same  time,  it  is  quite  possible  to  view  it  as  a measure 
indispensable  to  meet  a present  emergency.  Episcopacy 
was  originated  to  preserve  the  unity  of  Christendom,  and 
for  ages  it  accomplished  this  end,  thus  resulting  in  a 
fellowship  all  Christians  are  to-day  anxious  to  see  re- 
stored. May  it  not  be  that  in  once  more  universalizing 
amongst  all  Christian  communities  the  Episcopate  origi- 
nally recognized  by  the  undivided  Church  as  a true  Epis- 
copate, lies  the  readiest  and  most  likely  method  of  restor- 
ing the  lost  Church  unity?  It  would  seem  so,  at  least,  the 
majority  of  Anglicans,  Evangelical  and  Catholic,  are  of 
this  opinion.  But  first,  where  is  this  Episcopate  that  can 
be  so  universalized;  and  second,  by  what  method  can  it 
be  secured  by  those  Churches  which  to-day  are  without  it? 
Such  an  Episcopate  is  possessed  by  the  Anglican  Church, 
which,  owing  to  her  midway  position  between  Catholicism 
and  Protestantism,  has  been  regarded  as  the  link  which 
can  alone  unite  the  undivided  Church  of  the  future  with 
the  undivided  Church  of  the  past.  In  the  unbroken  con- 
tinuity of  the  Episcopate  of  the  Anglican  Church  we 
have  the  Episcopate  originally  recognized  by  the  undivided 
Church  as  a true  Episcopate.  This  then  is  the  value 
(1)  of  Episcopacy  qua  Episcopacy,  and  (2)  of  Epis- 
copacy with  its  added  character  of  historicity.  Inaugu- 
rated originally  to  preserve  first  the  unity  of  the  local 


APPENDIX. 


425 


Church,  then  of  the  adjoining  Churches,  and  finally  of 
the  Church  universal,  it  came  at  length  to  be  viewed  as 
the  permanent  method  of  preserving  the  Church’s  unity. 
Its  failure  to  this  end  was  conspicuously  seen  at  the  Refor- 
mation, but  it  is  thought  to  have  been  owing  chiefly  to  the 
fact  that  by  that  time  Episcopacy  had  become  a prelacy. 
A Reformed  Historic  Episcopate,  that  is  to  say,  an 
Episcopate  connected  by  an  unbroken  succession  with  the 
Episcopate  of  the  undivided  Church,  and  yet  one  that 
is  willing  to  recognize  its  functions  as  belonging  equally 
per  se  to  every  member  of  the  one  Order  of  the  Presbyt- 
erate  of  which  the  Episcopate  is  but  the  higher  office. 
Such  an  Historic  Episcopate  would,  I believe,  stand  a 
fair  chance  of  being  accepted  by  non-Episcopal  bodies 
as  the  solution  of  the  present  problem  of  divided  Christen- 
dom. An  Episcopate  presented  without  this  reform,  on 
the  assumption  that  as  an  apostolic  Institution  its  special 
functions  belong  exclusively  to  Its  own  Order,  never  will 
be  accepted,  since  such  pretensions  are  not  only  rejected 
by  the  great  non-Episcopal  bodies  as  having  no  warrant 
either  in  Scripture  or  early  Church  history,  but  they  are 
equally  so  rejected  by  the  majority  of  our  own  scholars. 

All  true  Christians  are  longing  for  some  method  b> 
which  the  broken  body  of  our  Lord  may  once  more  be- 
come united.  As  Anglicans  we  believe  that  with  the 
Reform  Intimated  we  possess  the  best  system  by  which 
this  can  be  accomplished,  viz.,  through  Episcopacy,  but 
especially  in  its  historic  aspect.  Here  then  is  our  answer 
to  the  question — What  is  the  actual  value  of  Episcopacy? 


426 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


II. 

EPISCOPACY  THE  ESSE  OR  BENE  ESSE 
OF  THE  CHURCH. 

IN  CLOSING  my  former  paper,  I asked  the  question, 
“What  is  the  actual  value  of  Episcopacy?”  And 
I replied,  for  reasons  there  stated,  that  it  commended 
itself  to  Anglicans  as  the  best  system  by  which  to  re- 
establish the  Church’s  broken  unity  into  its  original  one 
undivided  corporate  existence.  Notwithstanding  the  evi- 
dence I there  produced  to  prove  that  Episcopacy  was  not 
an  apostolic  institution,  but  an  after  development  by  the 
Church  itself,  there  are  those  who  may  still  think  that  it  is 
of  the  esse  of  a Church,  and  was  in  existence  before  the 
Church,  as  included  in  the  Apostolate.  This  evidently  is 
the  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Birmingham,  Dr.  Gore,  whose 
words  to  this  effect  I am  about  to  quote.  In  a series  of 
addresses  on  “ The  Christian  Ministry,”  delivered  in  his 
Cathedral  last  Lent,  he  is  reported  as  having  said  in  one  of 
them  (see  Church  Times  for  March  23rd,  1909)  : “The 
idea  that  the  Ministry  arose  by  delegation  from  the  Church 
was  widely  popular,  and  in  modern  literature  had  found 
expression  in  a work,  “ The  Church  and  the  Ministry,” 
by  Dr.  Lindsay,  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  the 
central  idea  being  that  the  Church  was  constituted  to 


APPENDIX. 


427 


frame,  and  create  for  itself,  to  meet  its  own  needs,  its 
own  ministerial  office.  Such  an  idea  was  profoundly  and 
thoroughly  unscriptural.”  That  Dr.  Gore  is  a scholar 
of  no  mean  attainments  we  readily  concede,  but  there  are 
other  Anglican  scholars,  his  equals,  if  not  his  superiors, 
who  reject  this  view,  and  agree  with  that  of  Dr.  Lindsay. 
Dean  Stanley  holds  that  the  Christian  Church  or  Society 
existed  before  the  institution  of  the  Christian  Clergy 
(Christian  Institutions,  p.  213).  I am  perfectly  aware  that 
some  Anglicans  put  little  weight  in  Stanley’s  opinions  on 
this  subject,  but  they  have  a profound  respect  for  Light- 
foot  and  Westcott.  The  former  quotes  with  approval  the 
statement  of  Tertullian  as  follows: 

“ It  is  the  authority  of  the  Church  which  makes  the 
difference  between  the  order  (the  Clergy)  and  the  people. 
Thus  where  there  is  no  bench  of  Clergy,  you  present  the 
eucharistic  offerings  and  baptize  and  are  your  own  sole 
Priest.  For  where  three  are  gathered  together,  there  is 
a Church,  even  though  they  be  laymen.”  (CM.,  p.  127, 
Pub.  Whittaker.)  That  Lightfoot  adopts  Tertullian’s 
opinion  as  his  own,  is  made  clear  by  his  previous  remarks, 
” As  the  Church,”  he  says,  “ grew  in  numbers 
it  became  necessary  to  provide  for  the  emergency  by  fixed 
rules  and  definite  officers”  (p.  10).  Stanley  asserted 
that  “ In  the  beginning  of  Christianity  there  was  no  such 
Institution  as  the  Clergy,  and  it  is  conceivable  that  there 
may  be  a time  when  they  shall  cease  to  be.”  (ib.,  p.  213.) 
To  a High-Churchman,  such  a statement  is  foolish 
heresy,  nevertheless,  it  is  the  opinion  also  of  Lightfoot 


428 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


“ The  only  Priests,”  he  tells  us,  ” under  the  Gospel  desig- 
nated as  such  in  the  New  Testament  are  the  saints,  the 
members  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,”  and  he  adds,  “An 
emergency  may  arise  when  the  spirit  and  not  the  letter 
must  decide,  the  Christian  idea  will  then  Interpose,  and 
interpret  our  duty.  The  higher  ordinance  of  the  universal 
priesthood  will  overcome  all  special  limitations.  The 
laymen  will  assume  functions  which  are  otherwise  re- 
stricted to  the  ordained  minister.”  (ib.,  pp.  121-146.) 
Thus  he  concluded,  as  touching  the  ordained  Minister, 
“ his  functions  cannot  be  absolute  and  indispensable.” 

(p.  145.) 

In  view  of  such  statements  as  the  above,  assertions  of 
“ The  Divine  right  of  Episcopacy;”  “ The  Necessity  of 
the  Threefold  Ministry  to  the  valid  constitution  of  a 
Church,”  seem  absolutely  absurd,  to  say  the  least.  If  it 
should  be  said  that,  after  all,  what  I have  quoted  from 
Lightfoot  represents  the  private  opinion  of  but  one  or  two 
eminent  scholars,  it  can  be  shown  on  the  contrary  that  they 
are  with  few  exceptions  the  conclusions  of  the  scholarship 
of  the  Anglican  Church  from  its  Reformation  till  the  pres- 
ent time,  voiced  by  Westcott  in  his  comment  on  the  minis- 
terial commission  given  by  Christ  in  John  xx,  1 9-23 — “TThe 
commission  and  promise  were  given,  like  the  Pentecostal 
blessing,  which  they  prefigure,  to  the  Christian  Society,  and 
not  to  any  special  Order  in  it.”  (The  Revelation  of  the 
Risen  Lord,  pp.  8 1 , 82. ) Thus,  P lummer,  in  “ The  Cam- 
bridge Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges,”  says,  “The 
Commission  therefore  in  the  first  instance  is  to  the  Chris- 


APPENDIX. 


429 


tian  community  as  a whole,  not  to  the  Ministry  alone,” 
(St.  John,  p.  363).  Strong  and  convincing  as  the  testi- 
mony of  scholarship  undoubtedly  is.  Bishop  Gore  takes 
us  directly  to  Scripture,  the  final  source  of  all  authority  in 
the  matter.  Let  us  therefore  pass  over  the  opinion  of  the 
scholars  and  go  directly  to  Scripture,  that  we  may  see  for 
ourselves  whether  it  affords  evidence  for  Bishop  Gore’s 
assertion,  that  the  idea  that  the  Church  possesses  the  power 
to  appoint  its  own  Ministry  to  meet  its  own  needs,  is 
“ profoundly  and  thoroughly  unscriptural.”  Or  whether 
Lightfoot,  Westcott,  Plummer,  etc.,  give  the  truer  sense 
of  its  teaching. 

Bishop  Gore’s  school  views  our  Lord’s  words,  “ Go  ye 
therefore  and  make  disciples  . . . baptizing  them 
teaching  them  . . , lo  I am  with  you 
always”  (Matt,  xxviii,  19)  as  the  bestowal  of  mission 
and  authority  upon  His  Ministry.  (Stanley-Catholic 
religion  p.  18.)  But  all  commentators  agree  that  these 
words  were  addressed  to  the  five  hundred  disciples  at 
the  mount  in  Galilee  (Hammond,  Geikie,  Lindsay,  etc). 
These  five  hundred,  therefore,  represent  the  first  gathering 
of  the  Church  before  its  absolute  Inauguration  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  Consequently,  excepting  the  “ Twelve  ” we 
have  the  commission  to  baptize  and  preach  and  to  bring 
into  the  Church,  given  to  mere  laymen.  This  is  what 
they  actually  did  at  Antioch,  where  the  Church  was  first 
established  by  laymen  independently  of  the  Apostles  or 
even  Prophets.  (Acts,  xi,  19,  21, 22-26;  Thatcher,  The 
Apostolic  Church,  p.  43;  Lindsay,  The  Church  and  the 


430 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Ministry,  p.  24;  Sanday,  the  Conception  of  Priesthood, 
p.  46.)  Even  the  administration  of  the  “ Breaking  of 
Bread,”  otherwise  “ The  Lord’s  Supper,”  as  indicated  by 
Tertullian,  was  undertaken  by  laymen,  for  in  the  first 
instance  the  breaking  of  the  bread  was  done  at  the  house 
by  the  Head  of  each  household.  (Acts,  ii,  46,  R.  V.; 
Stanley,  Christian  Institutions,  p.  44;  Lindsay  ib.,  p.  43; 
Allen,  Christian  Institutions,  p.  522;  Wordsworth — MG, 
pp.  103,  306,  331.) 

The  mistake  scholars  such  as  Gore  have  made  in  this 
matter  is  in  their  viewing  the  original  Apostolate  as  the 
exclusive  source  of  ministerial  authority.  They  entirely 
overlook  the  fact  that  the  Apostolate,  like  the  Prophetic 
office,  belonged  to  the  temporary,  or,  as  Professor  Gwatkin 
calls  it,  “ the  unlocal  Ministry.”  Lightfoot  emphatically 
asserted,  “ the  opinion  . . . that  the  same  officers 

in  the  Church  who  were  first  called  Apostles  came  after- 
wards to  be  designated  Bishops,  is  baseless.”  (CM,  p. 
30.)  This  local  Ministry,  which  included  Apostles, 
Prophets,  Teachers,  etc.,  owed  its  appointment  directly  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  not  to  any  direct  appointment  by  the 
Lord,  except  in  the  case  of  the  original  “Twelve”  (Acts 
xiii,  1-3;  Cor.  xii, 28;  Eph.  xi,  20;  iv, ii.) . The Didache, 
a document  of  the  first  part  of  the  second  century,  supports 
Tertullian’s  assertion,  that  the  congregation  could  appoint 
its  own  Ministry  if  necessary.  “ Appoint  for  yourselves,” 
it  says,  “ Bishops  and  Deacons  worthy  of  the  Lord  ” 
(xv,  12).  This,  with  other  data,  is  conclusive  that  in 
the  first  stage  of  the  Church’s  history,  it  did,  or  could. 


APPENDIX, 


431 


appoint  its  own  Ministry  without  any  reference  to  any  pre- 
vious apostolic  institution.  (See  Sanday-Con.  Priest, 
P.  72.) 

During  the  time  of  the  controversy  raised  over  the  re- 
marks made  by  the  late  Bishop  of  Worcester,  Dr.  Pe- 
rowne,  touching  the  equality  of  Presbyters  and  Bishops, 
the  Rev.  W.  J.  Hill,  in  a letter  to  The  Guardian  (March 
1,  1899),  which  paper  was  flooded  with  similar  letters 
at  the  time,  claimed  that  the  Church  of  England  holds 
that  “ Episcopacy  is  not  merely  the  bene  esse  but  of  the 
esse  of  a Church.”  In  proof  of  his  assertion  he  referred 
to  the  two  cases  of  Whittingham  and  Travers.  These 
two  cases,  however,  are  seldom  understood  by  those  who 
make  use  of  them.  Whittingham  was  not  even  in  Genevan 
Orders,  as  he  had  never  had  hands  laid  upon  him,  or  been 
called  to  the  Ministry  except  by  election.  He  was  there- 
fore a mere  layman,  and  had  himself  scrupled  about  his 
officiating  as  a minister,  but  was  overruled  by  Calvin. 
With  regard  to  Travers,  the  objection  against  him  taken 
by  Archbishop  Whitgift  was  not  on  account  of  his  orders 
per  se,  but  because  they  were  not  such  as  the  laws  of 
England  required  for  ministering  in  the  English  Church. 
Moreover,  Travers  actually  was  ejected  not  on  the  ground 
of  his  Orders,  but  for  breaking  an  order  of  the  Advertise- 
ments. (Short  His.  Ch.  Eng.,  p.  247.)  He  had  been 
nominated  for  Master  of  the  Temple  by  Lord  Burghley, 
Secretary  of  State,  and  Aylmer,  Bishop  of  London. 
The  latter  evidently,  although  one  of  the  leading  English 
Bishops,  had  no  objection  to  his  Genevan  Orders,  and 


432 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


it  is  further  unlikely  that  Whitgift  would  have  objected 
had  Travers  himself  not  been  strongly  averse  to  Episco- 
pacy, a fact  well  known  to  the  Archbishop,  However, 
after  he  left  the  Temple  he  was  appointed  Provost  of 
the  newly  founded  Trinity  College,  Dublin.  Professor 
Abbott,  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  wrote  me  in  May, 
1898,  of  this  appointment  as  follows:  “ It  was  not  neces- 
sary for  the  Provost  to  be  in  Holy  Orders.  No  doubt 
the  case  of  a man  who  claimed  to  be  in  Orders  was  not 
quite  the  same  as  that  of  an  acknowledged  layman,  as 
the  former  might  be  expected  to  perform  clerical  duty. 
I know  of  no  records  showing  whether  Travers  actually 
did  officiate  clerically,  but  I think  that  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  he  did  so.  . . You  will  observe  that  not- 

withstanding Whitgift’s  objection  (which  he  had  pre- 
viously raised  when  Travers  was  named  as  possible 
Master  of  the  Temple),  he  never  silenced  him  until  he 
as  a lecturer  contradicted  in  the  evening  what  Hooker 
had  preached  in  the  morning.  This  was  a case  expressly 
provided  for  by  the  Canons,  and,  accordingly,  for  this  he 
was  silenced,  the  objection  to  his  Orders  being  no  doubt 
repeated,  but  being  no  new  thing.” 

Now  this  explanation  by  Professor  Abbott  is  extremely 
important,  for  it  shows  definitely  that  Travers  was  silenced 
not  because  of  his  Orders  in  themselves,  but  because  he  had 
entered  into  a controversy  in  the  Church,  and  this  es- 
pecially with  the  purpose  of  contrasting  Presbyterianism 
to  its  advantage  as  against  Episcopacy.  It  has  often  been 
said  that  while  many  writers  admit  that  men  have  held 


APPENDIX. 


433 


appointments  in  the  English  Church  having  only  Pres- 
byterian Orders  (Bps.  Barry,  Short,  etc.),  of  the  cases 
alleged,  “ not  one  of  them  is  an  instance  of  a valid,  open 
and  authoritative  admission  of  a person  not  properly  or- 
dained to  a ‘ cure  of  souls,’  in  this  country,  nor  can  even 
one  such  case  be  produced.”  (Denny- Anglican  Orders,  p. 
198.)  The  fact  is,  however,  that  not  only  eminent  au- 
thority, such  as  Cosin,  Keble,  etc.,  conceded  that  such 
have  held  cures  in  the  Church  of  England,  but  the  names 
of  several  can  be  absolutely  produced.  For  instance, 
there  is  the  case  of  De  Laune,  a French  Protestant,  whom 
Bright  concedes  in  his  volume,  (“  The  Roman  See  in  the 
Early  Church,”  479),  to  have  been  instituted  to  a bene- 
fice during  Bishop  Overall’s  time  (1618),  without  reor- 
dination, and  several  others  could  also  be  named,  such 
as  Saravia.  (See  Saravia-Hadrian-Dict.  Nat.  Biol., 
where  may  be  seen  Bishop  Morton’s  written  refusal  to 
reordain  pastors  of  the  reformed  Churches.)  Notwith- 
standing, however,  that  the  majority  of  the  lesser  Clergy 
of  the  Anglican  Church  to-day,  together  with  some  few 
of  her  scholars,  such  as  Bishop  Gore,  hold  that  Episco- 
pacy is  the  esse  of  a Church,  the  present  Bishop  of  Dur- 
ham’s repudiation  of  that  doctrine  (Dr.  Moule — The 
Guardian,  January  22nd,  1902),  supported  by  Canon 
Sanday  (Con.  Priest,  p.  95),  can  easily  be  shown  to  be 
the  conclusion  of  the  majority  of  Anglican  scholars.  This 
we  venture  to  think  that  we  have  here  done  already,  and, 
therefore,  to  some  extent,  justified  the  representation  of 
Bishop  Perowne  touching  the  Church  of  England’s  view 


434 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


of  or  position  touching  Episcopacy,  viz.,  “ she  nowhere 
asserts  . . . Episcopal  government  as  necessary  to 

the  constitution  of  a Church  ” she  simply  “ prefers  Epis- 
copacy.” In  other  words,  she  views  Episcopacy  as 
merely  the  bene  esse  and  not  the  esse  of  a Church.  But 
I used  the  words  “ to  some  extent,”  because  the  Bishop 
indicates  not  exactly  what  is,  but  rather,  what  tvas  the 
officially  implied  position  of  the  Church  of  England  touch- 
ing Episcopacy  prior  to  1 662.  At  that  date,  by  her  re- 
vised Ordinal  and  Statutory  enforced  practice,  she  took 
another  position  (see  Prefatory  Note),  a position,  how- 
ever, which  has  been  practically  rejected  as  unwarranted 
by  her  best  modern  scholars.  Thus,  such  an  unqualified 
condemnation  of  Dr.  Perowne’s  representation  by  The 
Guardian  (Sept.  28,  1892)  as  I am  about  to  quote,  was 
entirely  without  warrant.  “If  the  Bishop  of  Worcester,” 
it  is  said,  with  the  assurance  as  though  speaking  as  a repre- 
sentative authority  of  the  Church  of  England,  “ had  been 
content  to  say  that  he  did  not  know  whether  Episcopacy 
was  of  the  esse  or  of  the  bene  esse  of  a Church,  we  should 
have  no  criticism  to  make  of  his  statement.  It  is  with  his 
readiness  to  pronounce  that  it  has  to  do  only  with  the 
bene  esse  that  we  find  fault,  and  we  do  so  because  such 
a declaration  seems  to  us  wholly  inconsistent  with  the 
jealous  adherence  to  a polity  derived  from  Apostolic  di- 
rection, which  Lightfoot  held  to  be  the  true  temper  of  the 
English  Church.”  Now  from  what  I have  said  it  is  plain 
that  The  Guardian  ought  at  once  to  have  recognized  that 
Dr.  Perowne  was  evidently  speaking  from  the  standpoint 


APPENDIX. 


435 


of  the  position  touching  Episcopacy  originally  taken  by 
the  Reformed  Church  of  England  before  1 662.  Here 
his  explanation  of  that  position  is  fully  warranted,  since 
the  Church  of  England  during  that  period  did  view  Epis- 
copacy as  merely  the  bene  esse  of  the  Church.  Thus, 
notwithstanding  our  present  Ordinal,  the  Act  of  Uniform- 
ity of  1 662,  and  the  recent  pronouncement  of  the  Angli- 
can Bishops  (The  Quadrilateral,  1888),  the  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession,  which  these  formularies  plainly 
teach  and  which  is  expressed  in  the  refusal  of  Anglicans 
to  acknowledge  “ whether  a Christian  community  which  is 
not  governed  by  Bishops  is  a Church”  (The  Guardian, 
ib.)  , “ can  never  be  made,”  says  Prof.  Sanday,  “ a doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  England  ” (Con.  Priest,  p.  95). 
But  if  all  this  is  so,  then  the  Bishop  of  Worcester  was  fully 
justified  in  viewing  Episcopacy  as  the  bene  esse  of  a 
Church,  and  not  the  esse;  while  he  was  further  warranted 
in  representing  this  as  the  actual  though  not  at  present  the 
official  view  of  the  Church  of  England.  Returning  to 
The  Guardians  reference  to  Lightfoot’s  view  of  Epis- 
copacy. It  is  strange  how  the  plain  statement  of  a writer 
can  be  passed  completely  over,  by  those  who  do  not  wish 
to  see  it,  as  though  it  had  never  been  written.  Lightfoot 
himself  in  1881  declared  that  he  still  adhered  to  the  main 
positions  taken  in  his  earlier  work  of  1 868  on  the  Chris- 
tian ministry.  Here  is  one  of  them.  “It  is  clear  then, 
that  at  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age,  the  two  lower  Orders 
of  the  threefold  Ministry  were  firmly  and  widely  estab- 
lished; but  the  traces  of  the  third  and  highest  Order,  the 


436 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Episcopate  properly  so  called,  are  few  and  indistinct  ” 
(ib.,  p.  30).  The  italics  of  course  are  ours  in  order  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  whatever  Lightfoot  himself 
thought  as  touching  the  date  of  the  introduction  of  Epis- 
copacy, it  was  after  all  a mere  matter  of  deduction  and 
not  of  positive  evidence,  since  at  the  close  of  the  apostolic 
age  the  traces,  he  declares,  of  a separate  Episcopate  are 
few  and  indistinct.  Now  had  he  kept  to  this  statement, 
drawing  from  it  a mere  assumption  which  it  alone  war- 
ranted, not  going  beyond  it  to  declare  that  Episcopacy 
must  be  placed  as  far  back  as  the  closing  years  of  the 
first  century,  and  that  it  cannot  be  dissociated  from  the 
action  of  the  last  surviving  Apostles,  St.  Andrew,  St. 
Philip,  and  especially  St.  John  (ib.,  pp.  41,  48,  81  ) re- 
corded as  having  lived  where,  and  at  the  time  when. 
Episcopacy  was  first  originated,  he  would  have  been  more 
in  keeping  with  the  guarded  language  of  the  Preface  to 
our  Ordinal.  In  1881  he  wrote  touching  the  result  of  his 
original  investigation  into  the  matter  of  the  Christian 
ministry,  “ The  result  has  been  a confirmation  of  the  state- 
ment in  the  English  Ordinal,  ‘It  is  evident  unto  all  men 
diligently  reading  the  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors 
that  from  the  Apostles’  times  there  have  been  these  orders 
of  Ministers  in  Christ’s  Church,  Bishops,  Priests  and  Dea- 
cons.’ ” He  then  added,  “ But  I was  scrupulously  anxious 
not  to  overstate  the  evidence  in  any  case.”  Now  the 
mention  of  St.  John  at  all,  together  with  St.  Philip  and 
St.  Andrew,  was  going  beyond  actual  evidence  into  the 
region  of  pure  tradition  (Smith’s  D.  B. ; Hastings’  D.  B.). 


APPENDIX. 


437 


Episcopacy  may  undoubtedly  have  developed  before  the 
close  of  the  first  century,  yet  it  may  have  come  into  exist- 
ence only  within  the  last  ten  years  of  that  period,  when 
most  probably  all  the  original  Apostles  were  dead,  except 
St.  John,  who  is  said  by  tradition  to  have  lingered  on  till 
the  very  close  of  the  century.  If  he  did,  then  the  Ordinal 
is  correct  in  slating,  that  from  the  Apostles’  times.  Bishops, 
Priests  and  Deacons  have  existed  in  Christ’s  Church- 
Even  if  St.  John  was  not  living  at  the  close  of  the  first 
century,  the  Ordinal  is  still  correct,  since  it  says  merely 
“ from  the  Apostles’  time,”  which  does  not  necessarily 
mean  they  were  alive,  but  only  from  the  time,  or  about 
the  time,  that  they  had  been  alive.  The  Ordinal  inti- 
mates no  more  than  this,  nor  is  there  evidence  to  warrant 
more. 

But  Lightfoot’s  opinion  is  more  in  accordance  with  the 
evidence  at  hand  when  he  discusses  the  character  of  the 
separation  of  the  separate  office  of  the  Episcopate  as 
differentiated  from  that  of  the  Presbyterate.  Here  he 
showed,  that  while  originally  the  term  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byter had  been  used  to  signify  one  and  the  same  office, 
the  term  Bishop  had  been  restricted  to  the  higher  office 
and  the  term  Presbyter  to  the  lower  in  one  and  the  same 
order  of  officials,  viz.,  the  Presbytery.  Thus  the  Epis- 
copate was  not  formed  out  of  the  apostolic  Order  by 
localization,  but  out  of  the  Presbyterial  by  elevation, 
(ib.,  p.  32.)  The  creation  of  these  two  offices,  however, 
out  of  one  body  of  office  holders,  did  not  create  two 
orders,  but  merely  two  offices  or  degrees  in  one  Order 


438 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


of  Ministers,  (pp.  84,  85.)  It  was  Cyprian  who  raised 
the  Episcopate  into  a position  of  absolute  independence, 
the  Bishop  with  him  being  the  indispensable  channel  of 
Divine  grace  . . . the  primary  condition  of  a 

Church,  (pp.  102,  107.)  Yet  the  claim  of  the  ex- 
clusive right  of  ordination  which  finally  gave  the  appear- 
ance to  the  Episcopate  of  being  a separate  Order  from 
the  Presbyterate,  was  only  fully  settled  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. (p.  89;  Wordsworth — MG,  p.  169.)  Then  it 
was  that  the  Episcopal  and  Presbyterial  offices,  being  no 
longer  regarded  as  sub-orders,  but  as  two  separate  Orders, 
the  correspondence  of  the  threefold  Christian  ministry  to 
the  ranks  of  the  Levitical  Priesthood  could  not  fail  to 
suggest  itself,  (p.  139.)  And  now  a startling  fact  is 
presented  by  Lightfoot  which  has  not  received  the  atten- 
tion it  deserves.  He  tells  us  that  the  completed  threefold 
Order  of  the  Christian  ministry  supplied  the  material  for 
a new  principle  which  is  nowhere  enunciated  in  the  New 
Testament,  viz.,  the  Sacerdotal  view  of  the  Ministry  (p. 
140.,  cf,  103.)  Lightfoot’s  opinion  that  a separate  Epis- 
copacy was  established  in  Asia  Minor  by  St.  John,  and 
other  Apostles,  may  be  correct,  though  for  reasons  given 
I do  not  think  it  is.  Assuming,  however,  that  it  is,  and  that 
it  was  because  of  this  that  he  was  led  to  regard  the  Episco- 
pate as  the  backbone  of  the  Church  (p.  134;  Address, 
August  1,  1888),  by  his  insistence  upon  the  fact  that  the 
only  Priests  under  the  New  Testament  are  the  Ministers 
of  the  Christian  brotherhood;  (p.  12),  by  his  acceptance 
of  Tertullian’s  statement,  that  it  is  the  authority  of  the 


APPENDIX. 


439 


Church  which  makes  the  difference  between  the  Clergy  and 
the  people  (p.  127),  he,  nevertheless,  showed  that  he  was 
utterly  opposed  to  the  Episcopate  being  viewed  as  the 
sole  channel  of  Orders,  or  in  other  words,  as  the  esse 
of  a Church,  but  rather  as  the  bene  esse.  And  this  he 
showed  plainly  in  his  refusal  to  un-Church  non-Episcopal 
Christian  communities,  while  advocating  a jealous  adhe- 
sion to  a polity  which  he  assumed  to  have  been  derived 
from  apostolic  direction  (144.)  Thus  we  have  Light- 
foot  in  line  with  Westcott,  Moule,  Hort,  Hatch,  Sanday, 
Gwatkin  and  the  majority  of  the  scholars  of  the  Anglican 
Reformed  Church  past  and  present  in  their  refusal  to 
regard  Episcopacy  in  any  other  light  than  as  the  bene  esse 
of  a Church. 


III. 

CAN  A BODY  OF  CHRISTIAN  LAYMEN 
CREATE  ITS  OWN  MINISTRY? 

SUPPLEMENTARY  TO 
EPISCOPACY,  THE  ESSE  OR  BENE  ESSE 
OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  statement  of  Bishop  Brown,  that  “ a 
congregation  in  the  time  of  Ignatius  had  the  right 
to  create  its  own  Episcopate,”  was  challenged  by 
a critic  while  the  Bishop’s  book  was  yet  in  MS.  It  is  true 


440 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


that  the  statement  appears  without  proof,  since,  as  I have 
already  said,  all  reference  to  authorities  for  statements  in 
the  context  was  left  for  its  Appendix  in  order  that  the  main 
argument  might  read  the  more  smoothly  unencumbered  by 
such  detail.  That  the  Bishop  was  on  as  firm  ground  in  the 
present  as  in  other  statements  we  shall  now  endeavor  to 
show. 

Bishop  Dowden’s  representation  of  Richard  Hooker 
as  “ an  acknowledged  classic  of  first  rank  in  English 
theology,”  will  not,  we  think,  be  challenged;  so  that  we 
may  quote  his  views  as  carrying  great  weight  with  Angli- 
cans. As  to  the  actual  necessity  of  Episcopacy,  he  says, 
“ When  the  Church  must  needs  have  some  ordained  and 
neither  hath  nor  can  have  possibly  a Bishop  to  ordain; 
in  case  of  such  necessity,  the  institution  of  God  hath  often- 
times, and  may  give  place.  And  therefore  we  are  not 
simply  without  exception  to  urge  a lineal  descent  of  power 
from  the  Apostles  of  continual  succession  of  Bishops.” 
These  words  of  Hooker  are  all  the  more  important  in  that 
he  declared,  from  his  high  notions  of  Episcopacy,  that 
” the  first  institution  of  Bishops  was  from  heaven,”  and 
” these  cases  of  inevitable  necessity  excepted,  none  may 
ordain  but  only  Bishops.”  However,  in  maintaining  that 
“ there  may  be  sometimes  very  just  cause  and  sufficient 
reasons  to  allow  ordination  without  a Bishop,”  he  gave  up 
the  whole  question  as  to  the  indispensability  of  the  Epis- 
copate. Indeed,  this  followed  logically  from  his  concep- 
tion of  the  visible  Church  as  ” being  the  true  original  sub- 


APPENDIX. 


441 


ject  of  all  power.”  Thus  it  was  that  he  concluded,  to 
quote  through  Bishop  Dowden,  in  the  matter  of  eccle- 
siastical polity  “ the  living  Church  possessed  the  right  of 
determining  its  own  form”  (Theol.  Lit.  Ch.  Eng.,  p. 
61 , 1 cf.  E.  P.,  vii,  1 4) . 

Of  the  same  opinion  was  Archbishop  Whately,  of 
“clear  and  massive  intellect”  (Ency.  Brit.),  who  rea- 
soned that  the  Protestant  Churches  at  the  Reformation 
“ had  full  power  to  retain,  or  to  restore,  or  to  originate 
whatever  form  of  Church  government  they  in  their  de- 
liberate and  cautious  judgment  might  deem  best  for  the 
time  ” (Kingdom  of  Christ,  p.  248  If.). 

In  the  first  part  of  this  Appendix  we  showed  that  be- 
tween the  Episcopate  and  Presbyterate  as  originally  insti- 
tuted, and  for  many  years  subsequently,  there  existed  a 
substantial  identity  of  Order  (Lightfoot,  CM,  p.  85). 
They  were  simply,  as  Lightfoot  holds,  two  offices  in  one 
Order,  that  of  the  ordinary  Presbyter  and  that  of  the 
presiding  Presbyter  or  chairman  of  the  council  of  Pres- 
byters. Thus  he  speaks  of  James  m the  Church  of  Jeru- 
salem as  “ though  holding  a position  superior  to  the  rest, 
he  was  still  considered  as  a member  of  the  Presbytery; 
that  he  was  in  fact  the  head  or  president  of  the  college  ” 
(ib.,  p.  34)  ; while  he  subsequently  referred  to  the  Bishop 
in  the  later  Church  of  Philippi,  as  “ a mere  president  of 
the  Presbyterial  council”  (ib.,  p.  63).  Having  traced 
the  growth  of  the  powers  of  the  Episcopate,  he  concluded, 
“ It  is  plainly  competent  for  the  Church  at  any  time  to 


442 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


entrust  a particular  office  with  larger  powers”  (ib.,  p. 
1 08) . Here  he  refers  to  the  later  authority  of  the  Epis- 
copate over  the  Presbyterate,  and  undoubtedly  he  is  cor- 
rect, but  so  also  is  Hooker,  who  alluded  to  this  increased 
authority  of  Bishops  as  “ a sword  which  the  Church  hath 
power  to  take  from  them  ” (EP.  viii.  v.  See  also  I.  xiv; 
III.  x).  This  brings  us  to  the  examination  of  the  origin 
of  Church  Government  as  viewed  by  Anglican  theologians 
generally. 

Prof.  Gwatkin  voices  the  conclusion  of  the  general 
scholarship  of  the  Anglican  Church  in  claiming  that  of  the 
society  which  our  Lord  commanded  His  disciples  to  per- 
petuate, “neither  He  nor  His  Apostles  ever  prescribed 
any  definite  form  for  it;”  while  he  adds  that  Ignatius  him- 
self knew  nothing  of  an  Episcopate  as  instituted  by  Apos- 
tles (Bishop;  Church  Govern.  HDB;  Dowden,  ib.,  p. 
51).  In  the  absence,  therefore,  of  any  apostolic  ordinance 
on  the  subject  (Lightfoot,  CM,  p.  49) , we  are  left  to  our- 
selves to  discover,  if  possible,  what  were  the  powers  in  this 
direction  which  may  warrantably  be  assumed  as  belong- 
ing to  the  Church  as  distinguished  from  its  Ministry. 

Here  Westcott  holds  that  the  original  commission  to 
minister,  given  in  Jno.  xx.  19-23,  was  given  to  “the  Chris- 
tian society  and  not  to  any  special  Order  in  it  ” (Revel. 
Risen  Lord,  p.  81).  This  passage,  with  Matt,  xxviii,  1 8- 
20,  has  been  taken  as  indicating  a commission  given  only 
to  the  Ministry  which  preceded  the  Church,  which  only 
came  into  existence  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  li). 


APPENDIX, 


443 


The  fact  is,  however,  that  in  both  passages  we  see  the 
Church  instituted  and  commissioned  (Prof.  Binnie — 
“ The  Church;”  Lindsay — “ St.  Mark,”  p.  242)  ; while 
in  the  Acts  we  see  it  empowered  with  the  Holy  Ghost  for 
the  carrying  out  of  its  commission.  Now  Lightfoot  asserts 
that  the  only  Priests  under  the  Gospel,  designated  as  such 
in  the  New  Testament,  “ are  the  saints,  the  members  of  the 
Christian  brotherhood.”  He  thus  regards  the  Priest- 
hood as  springing  from  the  whole  body,”  adding,  “so 
long  as  this  important  aspect  is  kept  in  view 
the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  has  not  been  directly  violated” 
(CM,  pp.  12,  131).  It  is  important  to  remember  what 
Bishop  Brown  has  so  correctly  insisted  upon,  that  “ every 
member  of  the  human  family”  is,  in  the  words  of  Bishop 
Lightfoot,  “potentially  a member  of  the  Church,  and  as 
such,  a Priest  of  God  ” (ib.  p.  9).  The  potentiality  was 
definitely  confirmed  for  the  first  time  to  the  five  hundred 
disciples,  i.  e.,  to  the  first  assembled  congregation  of  the 
Church,  when  the  commission  was  given  to  every  indi- 
vidual member  to  make  converts  whom  they  themselves 
were  to  baptize  (Matt,  xxviii,  19).  And  this  accords 
with  the  testimony  of  Hilary  the  Deacon,  that  “ at  the 
first  all  taught,  and  all  baptized,”  and  he  might  have 
added — “ all  administered  the  eucharist,  which  at  that 
time  was  the  closing  office  of  the  principal  meal  eaten  at 
home”  (Gwatkin,  Early  Church  History;  McGiffert- 
Apos.  Age,  p.  69) . Prof.  Gay  ford,  after  discussing  the 
ministrations  in  the  early  Church,  asks,  “ In  whose  hands 


444 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


did  this  work  lie,”  and  he  answers,  “ At  the  outset  the 
idea  of  ruling  does  not  appear.  Earnest  believers  came 
forward  and,  according  as  their  gifts  permitted  them 
volunteered  their  services  in  the  work  of  carrying  out  the 

necessary  arrangements  for  the  community 

Those  who  thus  volunteered  were  accepted  by  the  Apos- 
tles in  the  first  instance.  . . According,  then,  to  the 

ideal  of  the  Christian  Church,  there  would  have  been  no 
appointed  officers,  but  each  Christian  would  have  per- 
formed the  proper  part  of  the  work  according  to  the  ‘ gift  ’ 
or  ‘gifts’  granted  to  them”  (The  Church — HDB.), 
Prof.  McGiffert  m expressing  similar  opinions,  adds, 
“ Light  is  thus  thrown  upon  the  way  in  which  the  earliest 
Bishops  were  selected  . . . the  Church  instinctively 

chose  those  who  had  proved  themselves,  by  their  long  and 
faithful  services,  best  fitted  to  discharge  the  required  func- 
tions. Their  appointment,  in  fact,  was  very  likely  nothing 
more  in  the  beginning  than  a tacit  recognition  by  their 
brethren  of  their  call  to  serve  the  Church  as  they  were 
already  doing,  and  only  gradually  did  such  recognition 
develop  into  regular  choice  and  induction  into  office  ” 
(ib.,  p.  666).  How  thoroughly  all  this  accords  with 
Tertullian’s  statement  already  referred  to  as  quoted  with 
approval  by  Lightfoot,  that  it  was  the  authority  of  the 
Church  which  makes  the  difference  between  the  Clergy 
and  the  people,  so  that  when  there  are  no  clergy  the  peo- 
ple may  appoint  their  own  Priest.  We  now  also  see  how 
Hatch  was  justified  in  saying,  that  ‘‘  Church  officers  were 


APPENDIX. 


445 


originally  regarded  as  existing  for  the  good  of  the  com- 
munity,” and  he  then  added,  touching  their  appointment, 
that  this  was  similar  to  that  of  civil  officers  whose 
appointments  were  considered  ratified  by  the  mere 
entrance  upon  their  duties.  Thus  he  concluded,  “ There 
was  no  formal  act  of  admission  ” (Organ,  Chris.  Ch.,  pp. 

125,131). 

Now  the  above  opinion  as  to  the  congregational 
origin  of  the  Christian  ministry  is  not  only  warranted  by 
the  fact  that  the  commission  to  preach  and  baptize  was 
given  to  the  Church  and  not  to  its  Ministry,  but  we 
further  actually  possess  an  early  and  definite  example  of 
the  exercise  of  this  warrant  by  the  Church.  The  Didache, 
a document  of  the  early  years  of  the  second  century,  directs 
the  people  to  appoint  for  themselves  Bishops  and  Deacons. 
By  some  this  direction  has  been  thought,  from  the  signif- 
icance of  the  word  used  for  appoint,  to  indicate  merely  a 
choice  or  selection  of  certain  persons  for  office  by  the 
show  of  hands,  nothing  being  said  as  to  the  mode  of  ap- 
pointment to  the  said  office  (Allen — Chris.  Institu.,  p.  60). 
Others  have  gone  further  and  intimated  that  we  have  here 
an  actual  repetition  of  the  original  direction  in  Acts  vl,  3. 
“Look  ye  out  men  of  good  report  whom  ive  may  appoint” 
(Taylor — Didache,  p.  135).  In  both  cases  this  con- 
clusion of  course  is  drawn  from  the  word  cheirotonesate 
as  though  it  Indicated  merely  to  elect  by  show  of  hands. 
Professors  Hitchcock  and  Brown,  however,  give  ex- 
amples showing  that  thi?  word,  in  New  Testament  times, 


446 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


meant  equally  definitely  to  appoint  to  office,  thus,  notwith- 
standing that  Hort  sees  in  the  verb  cheiroioneo  as  used 
in  Acts  xiv,  23,  not  an  act  of  solemn  appointment,  but  a 
preceding  choice,  a mere  election  (Christian  Ecclesia), 
a view  endorsed  by  Swete  (Laying-on-of-hands-HDB) , 
we  agree  with  the  two  former  scholars  that  in  the  Didache 
XV,  i,  we  have  a definite  direction  given  to  the  congre- 
gation to  appoint  their  own  Bishops  and  Deacons,  and 
here  we  are  not  only  supported  by  the  AV,  which  runs — 
When  they  had  ordained  them  Elders,  and  the  RV,  which 
runs — ^When  they  had  appointed  for  them  Elders,  but 
Prof.  Gwatkin  does  not  hesitate  to  see  in  Acts  xiv,  23,  a 
definite  appointment,  although  without  the  laying-on-of- 
hands  (Ordination  HDB).  This  conclusion  seems  all  the 
more  warranted  by  the  fact  that  at  first  the  Ministry  seems 
to  have  been  included  amongst  the  spiritual  gifts,  those 
leading  by  common  consent  who  possessed  the  ability. 
Thus  Paul,  in  his  earliest  epistle,  calls  for  due  recognition 
being  given  to  those  thus  naturally  placed  in  the  position 
of  leaders,  viewing  them  as  a sort  of  local  Ministry  which 
at  that  time  was  without  any  technical  designation.  They 
are  simply  “those  that  are  over  (proistamenous)  you  in  the 
Lord  “ ( 1 Thes.  v,  12;  1 Cor.  xii,  28 ; Rom.  xii,  7) . 
“ The  allusion  here,”  says  Prof.  Allen,  “ may  be  to  those 
who  later  became  known  as  the  Presbyters  or  Elders  ” 
(Chris.  Insti.,  p.  24).  The  writer  of  the  Acts,  however, 
definitely  represents  that  from  the  first  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas appointed  Elders  in  the  Churches  they  founded. 


APPENDIX. 


447 


There  is  evidently  a difficulty  here,  since,  had  this  been 
so,  St.  Paul  could  hardly  have  referred  to  these  leaders, 
these  men  set  over  the  rest  (as  the  word  used  implies)  by 
their  special  gift  of  ruling,  without  designating  them  by 
their  distinctive  title  of  Elder  or  Bishop.  This  difficulty, 
however,  vanishes  at  once  if  we  see  in  these  leaders  of 
I.  Thes.  V,  12,  and  Rom.  xii,  7,  the  Presbyters  of  Acts 
xiv,  23,  men  who  only  later  became  technically  known  as 
Elders  from  the  time  when  Paul  first  referred  to  the 
definite  local  Ministry  under  the  distinct  titles  of  Bishops 
and  Deacons.  These  titles  appear  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philipplans  (II.)  > ^ document  written  be- 
tween A.  D.  60-63,  and  here  the  title  “Bishop  ” is  equiva- 
lent to  “ Presbyter,”  as  is  clear  by  comparing  verse  1 7, 
with  verse  28,  of  Acts  xx.  Paul  and  Barnabas  founded 
their  first  Churches  in  A.  D.  45,  and  the  Acts  was  not 
written  until  A.  D.  64  at  the  earliest.  By  this  time  the 
definitely  appointed  local  rulers  were  known  by  the  dis- 
tinctive title  of  Bishops  or  Elders.  Thus  the  author  of 
Acts  applies  to  the  men  appointed  by  Paul  and  Barnabas 
to  be  leaders  in  their  first  established  communities,  a term 
only  later  adopted  as  the  distinct  title  of  such  officers. 
They  were  not  at  first  definitely  appointed  with  a solemn 
ordination  which  Included  the  laylng-on-of-hands,  but  by 
the  mere  selection  by  the  Apostles  as  men  best  suited  from 
their  natural  gifts  to  preside  over  the  newly  founded 
Churches.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  term  cheirotone- 
santes  is  used  for  their  appointment  and  not  k<^tastesomen. 


448 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


or  l^atasteses  as  in  Acts  vi,  3,  and  Tit.  i,  5,  which  meant 
an  actual  placing  into  office.  I do  not  forget  that  I pre- 
viously accepted  the  first  word  as  used  in  the  Didache  as 
also  signifying  an  actual  placing  into  office,  but  I meant 
that  while  I so  accepted  it  in  conjunction  with  Professors 
Hitchcock  and  Brown,  the  appointment  there,  as  evidently 
also  in  Acts  xiv,  23,  was  consummated  by  mere  election 
without  the  laying-on-of-hands,  although  it  most  likely 
was  accompanied  with  prayer  and  even  fasting,  as  in  the 
case  mentioned  in  the  Acts. 

If  the  foregoing  reasoning  has  been  correct,  then  the 
direction  in  the  Didache  addressed  to  the  congregation  to 
appoint  their  own  Bishops  and  Deacons  meant  exactly 
what  is  said,  viz.,  that  they,  without  further  intervention, 
could  appoint  their  own  officers.  Nor  is  there  anything 
here  to  surprise  us,  since  it  naturally  follows  from  the  fact 
that,  as  we  have  shown,  to  the  Church  and  not  to  any 
special  Order  within  it  was  given  the  commission  to  teach 
and  baptize.  We  have  shown  that  at  the  first  laymen 
were  commissioned  to  preach  and  baptize.  We  have 
shown  that  from  the  first  laymen  were  viewed  as  possess- 
ing the  power  to  baptize  and  administer  the  communion 
(Ter.  De  Corona,  iv) , while  they  also  founded  Churches, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Church  of  Antioch,  where  the  Church 
at  first  had,  as  Sanday  says,  little  to  do  with  the  Apostles 
qua  Apostles  (Con.  Priest.,  p.  46).  Laymen  of  Cyprus 
and  Cyrene  founded  the  Church  of  Antioch,  to  which  a 
great  number  was  added  through  the  preaching  and  evi- 


APPENDIX. 


449 


dently  baptism  by  these  same  laymen  (Acts  xi,  20  ff). 
They  evidently  also  in  many  cases  must  have  appointed 
their  own  permanent  Ministry,  as  Gayford,  McGiffert, 
and  other  scholars  conclude,  for  if,  as  we  see,  they  as- 
sumed to  themselves  the  right  of  ministering,  they  equally 
must  have  assumed  that  they  could  appoint  their  own 
definite  Ministers.  That  the  Apostles  proper,  the 
“ Twelve,”  appointed  the  first  definite  officials  in  the 
Church  with  the  laying-on-of-hands ; and  that  later  Paul, 
an  Apostle,  laid  his  hands  on  Timothy  at  his  ordination 
by  Presbyters,  does  not  in  the  least  show  that  the  complete 
appointment  of  the  Ministry  did  not  rest  with  the  Church 
itself.  The  unique  position  of  the  original  twelve  Apos- 
tles as  having  been  specially  Instructed  by  Christ,  natu- 
rally made  them  the  leaders  and  initiators  wherever  they 
happened  to  be.  Of  the  Churches  founded  by  an  Apostle, 
says  Prof.  Gwatkin,  “ he  would  choose  their  first  officials, 
start  them  in  the  right  way,”  but  he  adds,  “ There  is  no 
sign  that  he  took  any  share  in  their  ordinary  administration. 

In  general  the  Apostle  was  not  a regular  ruler 
in  the  same  sense  as  a modern  Bishop,  but  an  occasional 
referee  like  the  visitor  of  a college  ” (Apostle — HDB). 
Prof.  Sanday  expresses  a similar  opinion.  He  views  the 
leadership  of  the  Apostles  as  accorded  to  them  more 
out  of  deference  to  the  supposed  fact  of  their  having  been 
exclusively  invested  ” from  the  first  with  powers  of  which" 
there  is  no  trace  ” (Con.  Priest.,  p.  42,  cf.  45,  47,  49). 
Nor  does  he  neglect  to  refer  to  that  larger  apostleshlp 


450 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


which  was  the  direct  outcome  of  ‘ Spiritual  gifts  ’ (ib.,  pp. 
49,  64),  owing  to  which  scholars  like  W.  R.  Smith 
(Apostle — Ency.  Brit.),  and  Principal  Lindsay  (Ch.  and 
Min.,  p.  74),  look  upon  the  Apostleship  not  as  a Church 
office,  but  as  a charisma,  similar  to  prophecy.”  Thus,  where 
there  was  no  Apostle,  the  Churches,  composed  solely  of  the 
Laity,  could  apparently  act  upon  their  own  initiative  with- 
out the  aid  of  a Ministry  of  any  character,  simply  through 
the  agency  of  “ those  whom  the  Church  most  trusted,” 
to  again  quote  Sanday  (ib.,p.  72).  Indeed,  this  we  have 
not  only  shown  to  have  been  possible  from  the  nature  of 
the  commission  given  to  the  Church,  but  we  have  also 
produced  examples  where  this  commission  had  been  so 
interpreted.  Having,  therefore,  elsewhere  shown  that 
from  the  first  Presbyters  ordained  without  the  presence 
of  a Bishop,  we  have  independently  proved  the  accuracy 
of  Sanday’s  statement  that  some  of  the  earliest  Churches 
had  passed  “ through  a Presbyterial  and  even  a congre- 
gational stage  ” (The  Expositor.  III.,  viii,  p,  335,  1887). 

With  all  this  before  us  we  are  not  surprised  that  Light- 
foot  concluded  his  famous  essay  on  the  Christian  Ministry 
with  the  clear  statement,  that  while  “ it  may  be  under 
ordinary  circumstances  a practically  universal  law  that 
the  highest  acts  of  the  congregational  worship  shall  be 
performed  through  the  principal  officers  of  the  congrega- 
tion . . an  emergency  may  arise  when  the  Chris- 

tian ideal  will  then  interpose  and  interpret  our  duty.  The 
higher  ordinance  of  the  universal  Priesthood  will  over- 
rule all  special  limitations.  The  laymen  will  assume 


APPENDIX. 


451 


functions  which  are  otherwise  restricted  to  the  ordained 
Minister”  (CM.  p.  145,  146). 

We  headed  this  paper  with  the  title  “ Can  a Body  of 
Laymen  Create  its  own  Ministry?  ” for  this  is  what  Bishop 
Brown  has  asserted  in  his  statement  “ a congregation  had 
the  right  in  the  time  of  Ignatius  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century  to  create  its  own  Episcopate.”  We  stated 
at  the  outset  that  the  Bishop  was  here  standing  upon  firm 
ground,  and  we  cannot  but  think  that  we  have  now  proved 
this  to  have  been  the  case.  A congregation  not  only  in 
the  time  of  Ignatius  had  the  right  to  create  its  own  Epis- 
copate, but  we  have  further  shown  that  a congregation  of 
Christians  had  the  right  at  all  times,  from  the  beginning 
to  the  present  time,  to  create  not  only  its  Episcopate,  but 
its  entire  Ministry,  if  such  were  needed.  Ignatius  had 
declared  that  ” where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Catholic 
Church,”  but  he  had  in  mind  the  Bishop  as  impersonating 
Christ  (Epis.  Smyr.).  On  the  other  hand,  Tertullian 
claimed,  “ Where  two  or  three  laymen  are,  there  is  the 
Church.”  (De  Exhort.  Castlt.,  VI.)  Now  Christ  Himself 
had  asserted,  “ Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together 
in  My  name,  there  am  I In  the  midst  of  them”  (Matt 
xviii,  20).  Was  not  Tertullian  more  In  harmony  with 
Christ  than  was  Ignatius?  It  Is  not  the  Ministry,  but  the 
Priesthood  of  the  body  which  binds  us  to  Christ,  and 
through  which  the  Church  possesses  the  right  and  power 
to  create  or  reorganize  its  Ministry  at  any  time  to  meet  its 
own  needs. 


452 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


IV. 

THE  CANONS  OF  HIPPOLYTUS  AND  A 
REPUBLICAN  EPISCOPATE. 

IN  MY  article  on  the  Origin  of  Episcopacy,  I said,  ( 1 ) 
the  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  (2)  the  practice  of  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  and  (3)  the  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Ancyra,  showed  that  originally  Presbyters,  apart 
from  Bishops,  were  viewed  as  possessing  the  power  to  or- 
dain, a power  they  had  freely  exercised  until  the  opening 
of  the  fourth  century.  The  Rev.  Darwell  Stone,  D.D., 
Librarian  of  Pusey  House,  Oxford,  however,  in  a recent 
series  of  lectures  on  “The  Church,”  in  Lecture  IV  (sec. 
Ill,  IV),  reported  in  the  Church  Times,  Dec.  3,  1909, 
endeavors  to  belittle  the  entire  testimony  of  these  Canons 
of  Hippolytus  by  criticising  some  of  its  provisions,  which 
were  evidently  of  a temporary  character.  And  he  finally 
sums  up  this  lecture  by  asserting  that  as  non-Episcopal 
Churches  lack  the  possession  of  “an  historical  succession 
from  the  Apostles  by  means  of  the  Episcopate  (Sec.  IV) , 
we  cannot  see  that  they  possess  the  guarantee 
which  we  believe  that  Episcopacy  affords  of  the  Covenant 
of  God”  (Sec.  VI).  He  means,  as  is  evident,  an  un- 
broken Episcopacy  of  apostolic  origin. 

Here  then  we  have  the  latest  utterance  on  the  essential 
character  of  the  Episcopate  by  a recognized  exponent  of 


APPENDIX. 


453 


the  “ Catholic  ” school  of  thought  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. We  are  not  surprised  that  Dr.  Stone  puts  the  non- 
Episcopal  Churches  outside  the  Covenant  of  God  as  re- 
vealed in  the  New^  Testament.  Bishop  Gore  in  his 
famous  work  on  “ the  Church  and  the  Ministry  ” did  not 
scruple  to  do  the  same  thing,  and  both  writers  are  merely 
explaining  the  view  of  the  “ Catholic  ” party  in  the  Angli- 
can Church  touching  the  position  of  the  great  Protestant 
bodies.  No  wonder,  with  present  talk  of  unity  in  the  air, 
we  are  inundated  with  booklets  and  tractlets  written  by 
members  of  this  school,  plainly  stating  that  if  any  author- 
ized overtures  of  corporate  union  with  non-Episcopal 
bodies  should  be  issued  by  the  authorities  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  which  ignore  this  aspect  of  the 
question,  its  result  would  be  the  splitting  up  of  our  Church 
into  fragments. 

Now  Bishop  Brown’s  present  book  on  “ Unity  ” not 
only  refrains  from  mentioning  what  to  us  appears  to  be 
such  a monstrously  preposterous  assumption,  but  the  entire 
drift  of  his  argument  is  in  word  and  thought  utterly  op- 
posed to  any  such  conception.  It  is  then  of  the  utmost 
importance  that  we  should  consider  the  ground  upon  which 
Dr.  Stone  mainly  bases  his  assertion,  since  the  view  he 
maintains  stands  in  the  way  of  any  possible  consideration 
on  equal  terms  of  the  subject  of  Christian  union  by  Epis- 
copal and  non-Episcopal  Churches.  I use  the  expression 
“ equal  terms  ’ advisedly,  because  otherwise  any  hope  of 
a mutual  consideration  of  this  subject  by  these  Churches 
is  a vain  dream.  Dr.  Stone,  after  accepting  the  evidence 


454 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


from  the  East  as  expressing  his  view  of  Episcopacy,  ex- 
amines that  of  the  West.  He  begins  by  admitting  that  it 
has  received  two  interpretations  as  follows: 

( 1 ) “ The  chief  authority  was  at  first  a college  of 

Ministers,  all  of  whom  had  received  by  consecration,  in 
an  historical  succession  from  the  Apostles,  the  Episcopal 
character,  who  consecrated  successors  to  themselves  to 
hold  a position  like  their  own;  and  at  a later  time  only 
one  of  them  received  the  Episcopal  character  and  became 
a Monarchial  Bishop,  while  the  rest  received  the  reduced 
authority  of  the  Presbyterate.” 

(2)  “ There  was  from  the  first  the  single  rule  of 

a monarchial  Bishop  who  alone  consecrated  and  ordained, 
and  the  Presbyters,  as  a distinct  Order,  were  always  in 
the  second  rank.  The  balance  of  evidence  is  very  strongly 
in  favor  of  the  second  interpretation.” 

Now  both  interpretations  Dr.  Stone  assumes  to  result 
in  practically  the  same  character  of  ministerial  succession. 
Unfortunately,  however,  neither  is  supported  by  Scrip- 
ture, nor  the  teaching  of  the  Early  Church,  while  the  first 
is  utterly  opposed  to  the  conclusion  of  general  scholar- 
ship. 

By  the  phrase  ‘ college  of  Ministers  ’ Dr.  Stone  means 
a ‘ college  of  Bishops.  ’ In  other  words,  that  the  Bishops 
and  Deacons  everywhere  appointed  by  the  Apostles  in  the 
New  Testament  were  not  Presbyters  at  all  as  we  under- 
stand the  term  to  signify,  but  Bishops  in  the  present  sense 
of  the  word,  except  that  they  all  rule  in  common,  and 
not  one  singly. 


APPENDIX. 


455 


This  is  not  by  any  means  the  first  time  that  such  a view 
of  the  New  Testament  Presbyterate  has  been  put  forward 
to  support  the  “ Catholic  ” conceptions  of  the  Episcopate, 
Bishop  Wordsworth,  in  his  “ Ministry  of  Grace,”  views 
the  early  Presbyters  of  Rome  and  Alexandria  as  “ a 
college  of  Bishops  with  a chairman,  rather  than  a college 
of  Presbyters  with  a President  of  a superior  order.”  We 
can  trace  this  thought  earlier  still,  for  Hammond,  in  his 
New  Testament  Commentary,  represents  the  Presbytery 
which  assisted  St.  Paul  to  consecrate  Timothy,  as  com- 
posed of  “ Bishops  or  Apostolic  men,”  adding,  “ for 
Presbyters  did  not  ordain  Bishops.”  (I.  Tim.  iv,  14  of 
Acts  xi,  30,  b.)  According  to  Hammond,  therefore, 
Timothy  was  made  a Bishop  by  Bishops,  and  this  is  what 
he  actually  says,  so  that  according  to  him  we  are  not  to 
see  any  Presbyters  present  at  all  at  Timothy’s  consecra- 
tion by  St.  Paul.  The  best  scholarship,  however,  sees 
in  the  Bishops  of  the  New  Testament  mere  Presbyters, 
all  equally  possessing  the  exclusive  functions  of  the  later 
Bishop.  (Timothy;  SBD;  HBD;  Cam.  Bib.)  Ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Stone’s  first  interpretation,  the  Presbyter- 
ate,  or  second  order  of  the  Ministry,  was  developed  out 
of  the  first,  the  Episcopate,  by  restrictive  measures  being 
passed  which  limited  certain  functions  to  one  of  its  mem- 
bers, which  had  previously  been  exercised  equally  by  all. 
But  this  would  make  the  Presbyterate  of  sub-New  Testa- 
ment origin,  whereas  Sanday  voices  the  conclusion  of  gen- 
eral scholarship  when  he  says  of  the  “Elder”  or  “Pres- 
byter,” “we  find  the  office  existing  in  the  Church  at  Jeru- 


456 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Salem  at  the  time  when  St.  Paul  and  St.  Barnabas  arrive 
with  contributions  from  the  Church  of  Antioch.”  (Con. 
Priest,  p.  59).  So  Daniel,  in  his  well-known  Com- 
mentary on  the  Prayer-Book,  says,  “ Elders  are  again 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  Church  at  Jerusalem 
in  Acts  xxi,  18,  where  St.  Paul  is  represented  as  present- 
ing himself  on  his  arrival  to  St.  James,  all  the  Elders 
being  present.”  (p.  419.)  It  would  indeed  be  strange 
reading  were  we  to  substitute  the  term  Bishops  for  Elders, 
and  read  ” all  the  Bishops  being  present.”  Dr.  Stone, 
and  his  school,  by  their  forced  explanation  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  New  Testament  Presbyterate,  would  make 
the  first  order  of  the  Ministry,  the  Episcopate,  to  precede 
the  second,  the  Presbyterate.  Lightfoot,  however,  tells 
us,  “ It  is  clear  that  at  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age  the 
two  lower  orders  of  the  threefold  Christian  ministry,”  by 
which  he  means,  the  second,  the  Presbyterate,  and  the 
third,  the  Diaconate,  “ were  firmly  and  widely  estab- 
lished; but  traces  of  the  third  and  highest  order,  the  Epis- 
copate, properly  so  called,  are  few  and  indistinct.”  (CM 
— Com.  Phil.,  p.  195.)  An  Order,  the  traces  of  which 
are  few  and  indistinct,  can  hardly  have  constituted  the 
definite  college  of  Ministers  such  as  Dr.  Stone  sees  in 
the  first  interpretations  of  the  evidence  from  the  West 
touching  the  origin  of  the  Episcopate.  The  truth  is,  that 
this  first  interpretation  has  no  general  existence  except  in 
minds  similar  to  that  of  Dr.  Stone  himself.  It  was  cer- 
tainly not,  as  he  asserts,  accepted  by  Lightfoot,  who 
viewed  Dr.  Stone’s  ‘ college  of  Ministers  ’ not  as  a body 


APPENDIX. 


457 


of  Bishops;  out  of  whom  had  developed  the  Presbyterate, 
but  rather  as  a body  of  Presbyters,  out  of  whom  had  de- 
veloped the  Episcopate.  That  Lightfoot  viewed  them  as 
possessing  the  functions  of  the  later  Episcopate,  in  no 
sense  alters  the  fact  that  he  viewed  them  as  a college  of 
Presbyters  and  not  as  a college  of  Bishops.  Thus  to 
use  his  own  words  he  concluded,  “that  the  Epis- 
copate was  created  out  of  the  Presbyterate.”  (CM,  p. 
81.)  Hiis  conclusion  is  not  only  endorsed  by  Sanday. 
who  after  telling  us,  that  “ at  first  the  terms  episkopoi  and 
presbuteroi  were  applied  to  the  same  persons,”  then  dis- 
cusses the  problem— “how  it  was  that  the  plural  epis- 
J^opoi,  representing  a college  of  Presbyters  with  equal 
rights,  became  a single  episcopos  with  superior  rights  to 
the  rest  of  the  Presbytery  ” (ib.,  pp.  61,  62),  but  it  is 
the  only  conclusion  possible  in  view  of  the  express  state- 
ment of  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  and  the  practice  of 
the  Church  of  Alexandria.  It  was  the  conclusion  also 
adopted  by  the  Dean  of  Westminster,  Dr.  J.  Armitage 
Robinson,  in  his  famous  sermon  on  “ the  Vision  of  Unity  ” 
delivered  to  the  members  of  the  late  Lambeth  Conference 
(The  Church  Times,  July  10,  1908,  p.  58).  Further 
in  his  recently  published  work  (Early  History  of  the 
Christian  Church) , the  noted  Roman  Catholic  scholar, 
Monsignor  Duchesne,  comes  to  the  same  conclusion  m 
dealing  with  primitive  Ordinations  generally.  Of  the 
part  here  taken  by  Presbyters,  he  says,  “ they  for  long 
retained  the  power  of  ordination,  which  now  especially 
characterizes  the  Episcopal  dignity.  The  Priests  of 


458 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Alexandria,  in  replacing  their  dead  Bishop,  not  only 
elected  but  also  consecrated  his  successor.”  Thus  not 
only  has  the  foremost  scholarship  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, but  also  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  unhesitatingly 
affirmed  that  ordination  was  originally  a function  belong- 
ing to  Presbyters  equally  with  Bishops.  Nor  must  we 
neglect  to  add  that  Duchesne’s  conclusion  is  but  a mere 
restaiement  of  the  view  previously  expressed  by  another 
recognized  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  Abbe  Fouard  (St. 
Peter  and  the  first  years  of  Christianity,  p.  201  ).  Thus 
Bishop  Brown’s  underlying  contention  in  his  efforts  on  be- 
half of  Christian  unity,  that  the  Episcopate  was  developed 
out  of  the  Presbyterate,  whose  members  originally  were 
viewed  as  possessing  the  power  to  ordain  equally  with 
Bishops,  and  that  apart  from  the  Bishop  they  had  long 
exercised  that  power,  has  been  shown  to  be  fully  war- 
ranted. 

In  view  of  the  above  facts,  what  then  are  we  to  make 
of  Dr.  Stone’s  assertion,  that  “ the  balance  of  evidence 
is  very  strongly  in  favor  of  the  second  interpretation,”  viz., 
“ There  was  from  the  first  a single  rule  of  a monarchial 
Bishop,  who  alone  consecrated  and  ordained?  ” Merely 
this,  that  it  is  an  assumption  not  only  without  warrant,  but 
one  opposed  to  what  few  facts  exist  touching  the  matter, 
and  the  conclusion  drawn  from  them  by  our  best  scholars, 
such  as  Lightfoot,  Perowne,  Hort,  Sanday,  Gwatkin, 
Robinson  and  others,  including  the  present  Bishops  of 
Durham,  Carlisle,  and  Hereford,  together  with  the  lead- 
ing Roman  and  Protestant  writers,  such  as  Duchesne, 


APPENDIX. 


459 


Fouard  and  Lindsay.  For  the  “ Catholic  ” party  in  the 
Anglican  communion,  therefore,  to  assert  that  on  their 
view  of  the  origin  of  the  Episcopate  the  great  Protestant 
non-Episcopal  bodies  are  outside  the  Covenant  of  God  as 
related  to  His  Church,  or  that  the  Historic  Episcopate  is 
essential  to  the  esse  of  a Church,  is  not  only  in  the  first 
place  so  monstrous  an  assertion  that  it  never  will  favorably 
commend  itself  to  the  general  thinking  public,  but  it  is 
further  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  and 
the  early  Church.  It  is  an  idle  dream,  consequently,  for 
this  “ party  ” to  hope  that  unity  on  their  basis  will  ever  be 
considered  for  a moment  by  the  non-Episcopal  Churches. 
This  is  the  thought  that  underlies  Bishop  Brown’s  present 
noteworthy  attempt  to  present  a plan  for  Christian  corpo- 
rate unity.  He  clearly  and  correctly  sees  that  the  crux  of 
the  whole  problem  lies  in  the  phrase,  “ A Republican 
versus  a monarchial  Episcopate.”  Bishop  Brown,  in  con- 
junction with  Bishop  Moule,  believes — as  the  latter  ex- 
pressed it — ” In  a moderate  Episcopacy,”  that  is,  in  Epis- 
copacy as  the  bene  esse  and  not  the  esse  of  the  Church.  In 
other  words,  in  a Republican  Episcopate.  In  presenting 
this  aspect  of  the  Historic  Episcopate,  therefore,  as  the 
basis  of  Christian  unity.  Bishop  Brown  is,  as  I have  fully 
shown,  supported  by  the  best  scholarship  of  our  Church. 
The  monarchial  aspect  of  the  Episcopate,  which  he  so 
stoutly  and  justly  combats,  is  utterly  opposed  to  our  Lord’s 
own  view  of  the  possible  future  form  of  the  Ministry  of 
His  Church.  During  His  lifetime  two  of  His  disciples 
sought  His  approval  of  their  attempted  elevation  above 


460 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


their  brethren,  only  to  meet  with  a stern  rebuke.  “ The 
kings  of  the  Gentiles  have  lordship  over  them 
but  ye  shall  not  be  so  . . . all  ye  are  brethren.” 

(Lk.  xxii,  25,  26;  Matt,  xxiii,  6,  13.  RV.)  For  some- 
time after  our  Lord’s  Ascension,  this  rebuke  carried  weight. 
We  see  this  in  the  fact  that  while  the  Apostles  were  alive, 
although  they  were  naturally  recognized  as  first  in  the 
newly  founded  Church,  they  were  nevertheless  merely  the 
first  among  equals.  Thus  the  late  Prof  Allen  wrote, 
“ The  Presbyters  are  associated  with  the  Apostles  in  the 
government  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem  as  if  they  stood 
on  equal  footing,”  and  he  then  gives  the  evidence  for  this 
assertion.  (Chris.  Institu.,  p.  39).  This  view  of  Prof. 
Allen  received  full  endorsement  by  Prof.  Sanday  who 
refused  to  see  “ any  special  prerogatives  of  the  Apostles  ” 
over  the  Elders,  (ib.,  p.  45.)  If  with  Ignatius,  nothing 
was  to  be  done  without  the  Bishop,  even  so  late  as 
Cyprian,  nothing  was  to  be  done  by  the  Bishop  without 
his  Presbyters.  (Harold  Browne,  xxxix  Articles,  p. 
553.)  The  monarchial  Episcopate  may  have  been  neces- 
sary at  one  time  owing  to  the  weakness  resulting  from 
human  infirmities  which  crept  into  the  Church,  but  it  was 
a development  permitted  and  not  planned  by  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  similar  to  the  kingship  permitted  by  Jehovah 
for  Israel.  It  was,  as  the  English  Bishops  said  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  VIII,  “ devised  by  the  ancient  fathers  of 
the  Primitive  Church.”  In  other  words,  it  was  an  eccle- 
siastical expediency  to  meet  what  Lightfoot  calls  “ the 
emergency.”  (CM.,  p.  10.)  As  such  it  is  certainly  not 


APPENDIX. 


461 


necessary  to  the  constitution  of  a Church,  although  it  may 
be  to  its  better  government  in  itself,  and  as  part  of  the 
whole  Church.  A Church  without  the  Historic  Episco- 
pate is  certainly  not  outside  the  Covenant  of  God  in  His 
relation  to  His  Church.  Prof.  Gwatkin  merely  reiterates 
the  finding  of  the  best  scholarship  in  asserting,  “ though  the 
Lord  commanded  His  disciples  to  form  a society,  there  is 
no  indication  that  either  He  or  His  disciples  ever  prescribed 
any  definite  form  of  it.”  (Bishop-HDB.)  If  this  be 
so,  no  action  of  a Church  council  can  be  absolutely  bind- 
ing upon  the  consciences  of  all  large  bodies  of  Christians. 
Here  we  are  in  harmony  with  Lightfoot,  who  in  his  sixth 
edition  of  his  Com.  on  the  Epis.  to  the  Phil.,  1881,  asserts, 
that  the  only  point  of  importance  on  which  he  had  changed 
his  opinion  was  touching  the  authenticity  of  the  seven 
Greek  letters  of  Ignatius.  He  had  previously  viewed  them 
as  forgeries,  now  he  accepted  them  as  genuine.  He  never 
changed,  however,  his  view  of  the  character  of  the  Epis- 
copate as  therein  portrayed.  On  this  he  had  commented 
— “ It  need  hardly  be  remarked  how  subversive  of  the  true 
spirit  of  Christianity  in  the  negation  of  individual  freedom 
and  the  consequent  suppression  of  direct  responsibility  to 
God  in  Christ,  is  the  crushing  despotism  with  which  this 
writer’s  language,  if  taken  literally,  would  invest  the  Epis- 
copal Office  . . . it  is  hard  to  believe  that  this  extrav- 

agance would  have  received  the  sanction  of  St.  Ignatius 
himself.”  (CM.,  pp.  96, 97.)  Lightfoot  was  wrong  since 
it  had  not  only  received  his  sanction,  but  it  had  been  used 
by  him.  It  is  this  “ crushing  despotism  ” of  the  monarchial 


463 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Episcopate  which  Bishop  Brown  practically  condemns 
in  his  advocacy  of  a Republican  versus  a Monarchial 
Episcopate,  and  in  so  doing  he  is  virtually  indorsed  by 
the  majority  of  the  writers  and  students  of  our  Church.  It 
is  true  that  the  Ignatian,  or  as  it  may  be  called,  the  “ Cath- 
olic” view  of  the  Episcopate  at  present  dominates  the  Min- 
istry of  the  Anglican  communion,  but  its  warrant  is  found 
only  in  a Mediaeval  endorsement,  as  a vital  necessity  to  the 
life  of  the  Church,  of  what  was  merely  an  ecclesiastical  ex- 
pediency to  meet  contingencies  which  may  be  said  to  exist 
no  longer.  This  being  so,  there  is  no  warrant  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  this  expediency,  which  has  failed  to  prevent 
divisions  in  the  very  Churches  which  have  preserved  it,  a 
fact  in  itself  which  proves  that  it  has  no  longer  power  to 
promote  the  object  for  which  it  was  originally  introduced. 
Thus  the  monarchial  character  of  the  Episcopate  must  be 
viewed  as  having  fulfilled  its  purpose,  and  it  now  belongs  to 
a past  agency  in  the  Church’s  development.  In  any  scheme 
of  Christian  unity,  therefore,  which  views  the  Historic  Epis- 
copate as  essential  to  its  successful  fulfillment,  the  original 
Republican  character  of  the  Episcopate  must  be  recog- 
nized as  the  only  form  which  can  claim  Scriptural  and 
early  Church  grounds  for  its  consideration  at  the  hands 
of  the  great  non-EpIscopal  Christian  bodies.  It  is  with 
such  a character  that  Bishop  Brown  proposes  in  his  plan 
of  unity  to  offer  the  Episcopate  to  these  Churches,  and 
in  doing  so,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  his  effort  by  those 
who  perchance  may  condemn  it,  this  fact  will  remain,  viz., 
that  his  plan  contains  the  only  aspect  of  the  Episcopate 


APPENDIX. 


463 


which  has  any  possible  likelihood  of  ever  being  even  con- 
sidered by  the  great  Protestant  bodies,  who  as  a whole 
are  much  more  in  spirit  with  the  rank  and  file  of  the  An- 
glican Communion  than  these  are  with  the  Greek  and 
Roman  Churches. 

In  his  recent  address  on  “Unity,”  the  Bishop  of  Ver- 
mont declared — “ If  what  are  counted  distinctive  Church 
principles  are  wrong,  let  us  acknowledge  this  boldly  and 
surrender  them.  . . . If,  on  the  other  hand.  Church 

principles  are  right,  we  cannot  compromise  them  for  the 
sake  of  seeming  unity.” 

Now  amongst  the  matters  which  the  “Catholic”  party 
in  the  Anglican  Communion  have  accepted  as  a Church 
principle  which  is  right,  and  which  Bishop  Hall  himself 
accepts,  is  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession  as  the  ex- 
planation of  the  term,  “the  Historic  Episcopate.”  The 
Bishop  of  Vermont  would  accept  a Roman  or  a Greek 
Priest  without  reordination,  but  not  a Presbyter  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Why?  Because  the 
two  former  are  regarded  by  him,  and  the  present  Angli- 
can authorities  at  large,  as  being  in  Orders  according  to 
the  view  of  a real  Episcopal  Church,  not  so,  however,  the 
latter.  But  what  again  does  this  mean?  It  means,  that 
according  to  the  present  accepted  teaching  of  the  Anglican 
Church  as  expressed  in  her  formularies,  no  one  but  a 
Bishop  can  ordain  to  the  Christian  ministry,  thus 
the  Methodist  Presbyter  having  been  ordained  by 
a Methodist  Bishop  is  not  in  Orders  at  all,  and, 
consequently,  must  be  ordained  by  a Bishop  of  Apostolic 


464 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Succession  before  he  can  be  admitted  into  the  Anglican 
ministry.  It  has  sometimes  been  asserted  that  the  Anglican 
Church  passes  no  judgment  upon  the  Orders  of  the  Prot- 
estant non-Episcopal  Churches,  but  merely  enacts  a rule 
for  her  own  discipline.  This,  however,  is  a mistake.  If 
she  reordained  all  alike  who  came  to  her,  it  might  be  so 
claimed.  But  she  passes  judgment  beforehand  on  non- 
Episcopal  Orders  in  refusing  to  recognize  them,  while 
she  recognizes  the  Orders  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Churches.  In  other  words,  she  accepts  the  Mediaeval  view 
of  the  “Catholic”  party  as  to  the  exclusive  powers  of  a 
monarchial  Episcopate,  and  rejects  its  original  Republican 
character. 

Now  let  us  be  perfectly  clear  on  this  matter,  since  we 
are  dealing  with  the  crux  of  the  unity  problem.  What  is 
the  Republican  character  of  the  Episcopate?  We  have 
already  clearly  intimated  this  in  what  we  have  said 
touching  the  original  powers  of  the  Episcopate,  the 
ruling  of  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  and  the  practice  of 
the  Church  of  Alexandria.  We  have  not,  however,  put  it 
in  the  form  of  a definite  statement.  Well,  here  it  is.  A 
Republican  Episcopate  is  just  what  the  Canons  of  Hippo- 
lytus indicates,  an  Episcopate  created  by  the  Presbyters  of 
the  local  Church,  who  upon  the  death  of  their  Bishop 
elected  and  consecrated  another  to  fill  his  place.  This  is 
what  could  be  done  now  if  necessary,  as  it  was  formerly 
done  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  and  evidently  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  itself  according  to  the  said  canons,  and 
in  other  Churches.  There  is  no  danger  that  in  conceding 


APPENDIX. 


465 


this  original  character  of  the  Episcopate  every  non-Epis- 
copal  Church  will  immediately  reject  the  overture  of  the 
Anglican  Church  to  give  them  the  Episcopate  on  the 
ground  that  such  a gift  is  unnecessary,  since  they  can  create 
it  for  themselves.  They  certainly  could,  and  as  an  Epis- 
copate merely  it  would  be  as  good  as  our  own,  but  it  would 
not  be  an  historic,  but  a new  Episcopate,  and  in  this  fact 
lies  the  whole  difference.  As  a new  Episcopate  it  would 
not  be  likely  to  find  acceptance  at  the  hands  of  a Church 
with  an  Historic  Episcopate.  What  is  required  is  some 
ground  as  a basis  of  unity  which  all  Churches  can  agree 
to  accept,  or  would  be  to  accept. 

Is  not  this  the  Historic  Episcopate,  which  can,  by  its 
unbroken  orderly  succession  in  the  Church  be  recognized 
as  an  Historic  Episcopate  without  any  question  as  to  the 
method  by  which  such  an  unbroken  succession  was  main- 
tained. This  is  the  Republican  character  of  the  Episco- 
pate, which  is  Scriptural,  which  agrees  with  the  teaching 
and  practice  of  the  early  Church,  as  the  majority  of  our 
own  best  scholars  concede,  and  which  therefore  Bishop 
Brown  now  proposes  to  adopt  as  the  basis  of  his  plan  of 
‘ Unity.’ 


After  I had  completed  the  above  third  part  of  my  essay. 
The  Churchman  of  New  York  (Feb.  5th,  1910),  came 
out  with  a review  of  Dr.  Briggs’  just  published  volume  oii 
“Church  Unity;’’  further  alluding  to  it  in  an  editorial, 
which  also  referred  to  the  Episcopate,  as  “ a stumbling 


466 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


block  to  the  unity  it  was  created  to  conserve.”  The  gen- 
eral intention  of  the  editorial  was  evidently  to  protest 
against  the  assumption  that  the  Ministry,  any  kind  or  any 
part,  is  above  the  Church  which  organized  it  for  its  own 
service.  The  writer  condemned  Dr.  Briggs’  attempt  to 
solve  the  problem  of  unity  by  validating  the  Presbyterate 
as  the  only  source  of  ministerial  succession.  Dr.  Briggs 
had  maintained  that  “ the  Anglican  Episcopate  has  now 
what  it  always  has  had  and  nothing  more,  namely.  Epis- 
copal succession  so  far  as  authority  and  jurisdiction  are 
concerned,  but  not  so  far  as  any  special  Episcopal  char- 
acter is  concerned.  Its  Priestly  character,  so  far  as  it  has 
any,  it  gets  from  priestly  ordination.  The  only  way  in 
which  Anglican  orders  can  be  successfully  maintained  is 
the  same  way  in  which  the  Orders  of  other  Protestant 
Churches  can  be  maintained,  namely,  through  Presby- 
terial  succession,  which  alone  transmits  the  functions  of 
prophecy,  priesthood  and  royalty  in  all  the  Churches  of 
the  Reformation.”  The  Reviewer  of  Dr.  Briggs’  Look 
thinks  that  the  writer  had  dogmatically  asserted  an  opinion 
for  which  he  presented  scant  evidence,  and  he  then  himself 
expressed  the  opinion  that  the  whole  theory  of  an  Historic 
Ministry  transmitted  through  Presbyters  is  nothing  but  an 
afterthought,  for  with  the  turn  of  the  second  century  there 
appear  to  have  been  no  Christian  communities  in  any 
part  of  the  world  which  “ intended  or  practiced  the  trans- 
mission of  ministerial  Orders  through  Presbyters.”  His 
own  view  of  the  whole  matter  appears  evidently  to  be 
that  of  the  writer  of  the  editorial  who  apparently  objects 


APPENDIX. 


467 


to  the  authority  of  the  Episcopate  as  set  “ not  only  over 
the  rest  of  the  Church’s  Order,  but  over  the  Church  itself.” 
The  evident  object  of  both  editorial  and  review  is  the 
presentation  of  a strong  protest  against  the  absolute  author- 
ity of  a Ministry  of  any  kind  over  the  Church  which 
created  it.  Here  both  writers  are  supported  by  the  ma- 
jority of  Anglican  scholars,  and  thus  both  are  justified  in 
condemning  what  they  conceive  to  be  Dr.  Briggs’  un- 
warranted attempt  to  exalt  above  the  Church  a Ministry 
derived  through  the  Presbyterate.  If,  however,  I am  not 
greatly  mistaken,  they  have  misunderstood  and  so  mis- 
represented the  purport  of  Dr.  Briggs’  real  contention, 
though  he  may  be  himself  to  blame  for  this,  owing  to 
unguarded  expressions  as  to  a Presbyterial  succession  trans- 
mitting through  its  own  unbroken  Order  functions  of  any 
character.  I apprehend  that  Dr.  Briggs  does  not  mean 
to  set  any  form  of  Ministry  above  the  Church,  but  simply 
to  show  the  real  character  of  the  Episcopate  in  general 
and  the  Anglican  Episcopate  in  particular,  namely,  that 
after  all,  what  it  possesses  of  presumably  unique  functions 
— for  he  says  of  its  priestly  character,  “ so  far  as  it  has 
any  ” — has  been  derived  from  the  Presbyterate.  And  he 
is  here  undoubtedly  correct,  for  this  is  simply  our  conten- 
tion for  a Republican  versus  a Monarchial  Episcopate, 
Bishops  per  se  have  no  distinctive  character  apart  from 
the  merest  Presbyter.  Nor  can  they  possibly  be  viewed 
as  having  such  if  they  form  only  a higher  office  in  the  one 
Order  of  Presbyter-Bishops.  We  have  fully  shown  that 
Bishops  and  Presbyters  are  viewed  by  most  ancient  and 


468 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


modern  writers  as  forming  but  one  order  in  the  Ministry. 
If  this  be  so,  then  Bishops  derive  whatever  powers  they 
possess  of  ministerial  inheritance  through  a ministerial  tac- 
tual succession  from  the  Presbyterate  out  of  which  the 
Episcopate  was  originally  evolved.  I have  fully  shown 
that  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus  and  the  practice  of  the 
early  Church  of  Alexandria  demonstrate  that  originally 
the  presence  of  a Bishop  was  not  considered  necessary  at 
ordinations,  which  at  that  time  were  performed  by  Pres- 
byters. Indeed  the  present  Bishop  of  Gibraltar,  Dr.  W. 
E.  Collins,  in  an  article  in  The  Guardian,  Dec.  6th, 
1899,  entitled,  “The  Testamentum  Jesu  Christu,” 
showed  that  down  to  the  turn  of  the  third  century  there 
were  several  manuals  in  use  in  the  Church  which  directed 
that  “ a confessor  in  prison  or  in  chains  for  the  faith  “ 
might  become  a Deacon  or  a Presbyter  without  any  laying- 
on-of-hands  on  the  ground  that  the  hand  of  God  had  al- 
ready rested  upon  him.  The  study  of  the  early  practice 
of  the  Church  shows,  as  I have  already  intimated,  that  the 
idea  that  the  Episcopate  alone  could  order  the  Ministry 
was  a growth  similar  to  that  of  the  Papacy,  It  seems  to 
me  that  Dr.  Briggs  as  a scholar  was  simply  maintaining 
what  most  scholars  are  agreed  upon,  namely,  that  so  far  as 
there  is  a Ministry  that  transmits  any  unique  character 
through  an  unbroken  succession  of  and  by  its  own  Order, 
that  Ministry  is  in  the  Presbyterate,  since  the  Episcopate 
merely  exercises  functions  which  the  study  of  “Orders” 
shows  to  have  been  originally  possessed  and  exercised  by 
Presbyters.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  there  is  no  such 


APPENDIX. 


469 


thing  as  the  transference  of  exclusive  ministerial  functions 
through  an  unbroken  ministerial  succession  of  anp  charac- 
ter. It  is  of  course  through  the  Priesthood  that  the  Min 
istry  receives  its  authority  for  the  exercise  of  its  functions, 
as  the  English  Bishops  said  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  that 
he  exercised  his  office,  “by  the  authority  of  Priesthood.” 
(Form.  Hy.,  VIII.).  They  were  correct,  but  not  by  a 
Priesthood  such  as  they  assumed.  It  is  the  Priesthood 
which  belongs  equally  to  every  member  of  the  Christian 
Church.  A man  is  not  ordered  to  the  Priesthood,  but 
rather  to  the  exercise  of  its  functions.  To  this  end  he  is 
ordained  a Presbyter,  not  a Priest.  Thus  it  is  that  Light- 
foot  insists,”  the  priestly  functions  and  privileges  of  the 
Christian  people  are  never  regarded  as  transferred  or  even 
delegated  to  their  officers.  . . The  only  Priests  under 

the  Gospel,  distinguished  as  such  in  the  New  Testament, 
are  the  saints,  the  members  of  the  Christian  brotherhood.” 

(CM.,p.  12.) 

Now  this  position  of  the  great  Lightfoot  is  exactly 
that  of  Bishop  Brown  underlying  his  plea  for  the  recogni- 
tion of  a Republican  Episcopate,  a position  which  the  able 
Editors  of  The  Churchman  have  already  indorsed  be- 
fore the  issue  of  his  book.  Is  not  patient  scholarship  at 
length  winning  the  day  over  the  great  force  of  Sacerdotal 
prejudice?  Is  not  the  present  remarkable  “Laymen’s 
Movement  ” the  foreshadowing  of  Lightfoot’s  prophecy 
uttered  at  the  close  of  his  essay  on  the  Christian  Ministry, 
“ the  emergency  may  arise  when  the  spirit  and  not  the 
letter  niust  decide.  TTie  Christian  ideal  will  then  inter- 


470 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


pose  and  interpret  our  duty.  The  higher  ordinance  of 
the  universal  Priesthood  will  overrule  all  special  limita- 
tions. The  laymen  will  assume  functions  which  are  other- 
wise restricted  to  the  ordained  Minister.”  (ib.,  p.  12.) 
Lightfoot  means  here  not  the  assumption  of  functions,  but 
the  assumption  of  their  exercise,  and  is  not  this  being  done 
in  the  coming  recognition  that  it  is  the  Church  which  is 
above  the  Ministry,  and  not  the  Ministry  which  is  above 
the  Church. 


The  foregoing  Appendix  was  written  for  the  text  of 
this  volume  as  presented  in  the  original  Manuscript  before 
it  was  revised  by  its  author.  Since  then,  however.  Bishop 
Brown  has  rejected  the  Historic  Episcopate  entirely,  not 
merely  as  unnecessary  to  Church  unity,  but  also  as  an 
insuperable  barrier  to  that  end.  And  here  he  is  undoubt- 
edly correct  if  the  acceptance  and  continuance  of  the  His- 
toric Episcopate  is  to  be  viewed  as  a sine  qua  non  to  Chris- 
tian union.  In  the  foregoing  “ Appendix  ” we  have  shown 
that  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession,  in  other  words, 
the  assumed  existence  of  an  unbroken  Episcopate  through 
its  own  Order  from  its  original  institution  by  one  or  more 
of  the  Apostles,  including  its  sole  right  to  order  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  cannot  be  proved  either  by  Scripture  or 
early  Church  history.  We  have  shown  that  as  originally 
constituted  every  Congregational  Church  was  viewed  from 
the  first  as  possessing  the  right  and  power  to  institute  its 
own  Ministry.  Thus,  all  subsequent  forms  of  ministerial 
government  must  be  viewed  as  matters  entirely  within  the 


APPENDIX. 


471 


province  of  each  Church  or  congregation  to  decide  for 
itself. 

If  such  a conclusion  be  rejected,  then  there  is  no  halt- 
ing place  between  this  rejection  and  the  Church  of  Rome, 
that  is,  for  the  so-called  ‘ Catholic  ’ fellowship  or  unity. 
From  the  standpoint  of  a universal  Catholic  Church,  a 
National  Church  has  no  more  right  to  become  a law  to 
itself  than  has  an  individual  Diocese.  If  it  has,  then  also 
has  a Diocese,  and  finally  each  individual  congregation. 
The  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United 
States  of  America  declares  that  “ The  visible  unity  of  the 
body  of  Christ,”  in  other  words  the  Church,  “ is  not  de- 
stroyed by  its  divisions  into  different  Denominations  of  pro- 
fessing Christians,”  although  it  adds,  that  by  these  it  is 
“ obscured  ” (p.  6).  But  if  the  existence  of  these  sepa- 
rate Denominations  does  not  destroy  the  actual  unity  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  this  obscuring  cannot  result  from  their 
existence,  but  rather  from  a lack  of  charity  which  prevents 
them  from  affiliating  together  as  one  united  body  of  Chris- 
tians in  which  every  member  has  the  right  of  full  commun- 
ion in  each  other’s  Church.  That  we  are  correct  is  seen 
in  this  said  Constitution,  which  further  declares  that  all  of 
these  different  Denominations  where  the  Word  and  Sacra- 
ments are  maintained  in  their  fundamental  integrity  are  to 
be  recognized  as  “ true  branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ,” 
since,  “ It  is  according  to  Scriptural  example  that  the 
Church  should  be  divided  into  many  particular  Churches.” 
But  this  brings  us  to  consider  the  nature  of  schism. 
Staley,  quoting  from  Newman,  represents  that  ‘ schism  ’ 


472 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


is  constituted  by,  among  other  separate  causes,  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Episcopal  government  of  the  Historic  Churches 
by  seceding  bodies  of  Christians,  those  Churches  retaining 
this  ecclesiastical  regimen  alone  being  in  the  apostolic  fel- 
lowship of  Acts  ii,  42.  (Cath.  Relig.  pp.  36,  62.,  cf.  21 , 
23,  35.)  But  the  word  “fellowship”  in  this  passage 
means  a community  of  goods,  and  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  any  Apostolic  Succession  of  Orders  (Ham- 
mond, in  loco.  Further,  Prof.  J.  H.  Moulton  shows 
that  the  word  “ schism  ” in  this  sense  is  unknown  in  Scrip- 
ture, a sense  which  is  also  an  ecclesiastical  perversion  of 
a word  which  means  discord  or  strife  among  Christians 
themselves.  (What  is  Schism?  pp.  4,  7,  8.)  The  Rev. 
Chancellor  Lias  in  agreement  with  this,  says,  “ the  recog- 
nized theological  sense  of  the  word  ‘ schism  ‘ renders  it 
unsuitable  here,  where  the  idea  is  rather  that  of  division  in, 
than  separations  from,  the  Church  ” (Cam.  Bib.  I.  Cor. 
i,  10.)  Divisions,  he  intimates,  which  were  caused  by  lack 
of  mutual  affection,  in  other  words,  by  that  lack  of  charity 
to  which  I have  already  alluded  as  all  that  obscures  the 
visible  unity  of  the  separated  Churches  of  Christ. 

Returning  to  the  Historic  Episcopate.  We  ourselves 
have  long  held  the  opinion  to  which  Bishop  Brown  has 
come  in  the  last  revision  of  his  manuscript  before  publica- 
tion. In  an  article  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Review 
for  June  1 897,  entitled,  “ Can  Apostolic  Succession  be 
proved  ” — we  held  not  merely  that  it  could  not,  but  that 
in  the  Insistence  upon  the  fourth  clause  of  the  Lambeth 
Quc^drllateral  for  Christian  unity  we  should  ultimately  be 


APPENDIX. 


473 


found  “ Fighting  against  God.”  Bishop  Brown’s  change 
of  view,  therefore,  calls  for  no  alteration  in  our  “ Appen- 
dix.” We  need  merely  to  point  out  that  where  we  appear 
to  have  insisted  upon  reordination  it  was  only  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  the  Historic  Episcopate  is  essential  in  any 
scheme  of  Christian  unity.  If  that  be  contended,  then  reordi- 
nation logically  goes  with  it.  But  why  should  it  be 
deemed  essential?  With  the  rejection  of  the  Sacerdotal  as- 
pect of  the  Historic  Episcopate  by  Bishops  Lightfoot,  Pe- 
rowne,  Moule,  Profs,  Sanday,  Gwatkin,  and  indeed  most 
of  the  scholars  of  our  Communion,  the  Historic  Episcopate 
can  only  be  viewed  as  essential  on  two  understandings,  ( 1 ) 
that  it  has  proved  itself  indispensable  to  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  and  (2)  that  all  Churches  consent  to  accept  the 
Historic  Episcopate  with  its  continuance  as  forming  one 
of  the  planks  in  a platform  of  unity  upon  which  they 
would  all  agree  to  unite. 

Now  in  the  first  place,  if  the  Historic  Episcopate  did 
not  prevent  the  disruption  of  the  Church’s  acknowledged 
visibility  in  the  past,  there  can  be  no  possible  guarantee 
against  a like  disruption  in  the  future.  Some  basis  there- 
fore of  a different  character  from,  or  as  not  necessaril]) 
including  a particular  form  of.  Church  polity,  must  be 
sought  from  which  it  would  be  impossible  for  any  member 
to  separate  and  still  be  a Christian.  Preaching  on 
“Unity”  before  the  University  of  Cambridge  on  Jan. 
30th,  of  this  year.  Canon  Wilson,  referring  to  the  disbelief 
the  Church  was  called  to  face  to-day,  said,  “ we  cannot, 
I think,  help  acknowledging  non-Episcopalians  as  brothers 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 

and  allies  in  the  great  battle,  and  welcome  them,  as  they 
would  welcome  us,  to  the  one  Divinely-appointed  sacra- 
ment of  unity.  Surely  it  is  possible  for  us  all  to  make  our 
Holy  Communion  a Sacrament  of  the  One  Catholic 
Church  of  which  we  all  are  members,  and  not  the  Sacra- 
ment of  our  branch  of  it.  It  is  the  Lord’s  Supper,  not  our 
supper.  . . . This  would  efface  schism,  while  it  re- 

tains various  forms  of  organization  and  worship ; for  there 
is  no  schism  among  those  who  share  in  the  communion  of 
the  Body  and  Blood,  the  visible  Body  and  the  invisible 
life,  of  Christ.  Could  this  be  wrong?  Can  we  ignore 
the  voice  of  God  Himself  speaking  to  us  in  facts,  which 
tell  us  that  Christ-likeness  and  graces  and  gifts  of  every 
kind  are  not  unequally  distributed  among  our  divided 
Communions?  ” 

If  I mistake  not.  Canon  Wilson  has  here  practically 
supplied  the  basis  referred  to.  It  is  this,  as  I interpret 
his  words — The  acceptance  of  Christ  as  the  Incarnate 
Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the  World,  Who  shall  be 
taken,  consequently,  as  the  principle  of  every  human 
thought  and  action.  Every  congregation  of  Christians 
so  believing,  and  in  which  the  two  Sacraments  ordained 
by  Christ  are  administered,  shall  be  viewed  as  a complete 
part  of  the  Universal  Church  of  Christ,  and  as  such  en- 
titled to  send  its  Pastors  at  all  times,  however  designated, 
to  act  with  a central  board  of  Ministers  of  all  Denomina- 
tions, who  in  the  name  of  all  shall  act  for  all  when  asked 
to  do  so,  even  in  the  matter  of  ordaining  candidates  for 
the  Ministry  sent  to  them  for  such  purpose  by  any  par- 


APPENDIX. 


475 


ticular  Church.  Such  candidate  to  be  for  that  Church 
itself,  which  shall  have  previously  elected  and  examined 
him  by  its  own  standards.  The  many  details  necessary 
to  the  harmonious  working  of  any  such  scheme  cannot  be 
entered  into  here.  All  I propose  now  is  to  offer,  in  con- 
junction with  Bishop  Brown,  some  general  outline  for  a 
basis  of  Christian  unity  which  has  a possibility  of  becoming 
permanent. 

The  above  naturally  brings  us  to  our  second  understand- 
ing,  viz.,  the  acceptance  by  non-Episcopal  bodies  of  the 
Historic  Episcopate,  with  its  continuance  as  one  of  the 
planks  in  a scheme  of  Church  unity.  Bishop  Brown  pro- 
poses that  each  non-Episcopal  Church  should  create  for 
itself  an  Episcopate  from  which  members  would  be  sent 
to  act  on  a central  board  such  as  we  have  suggested.  I 
doubt  whether  this  would  be  done,  although  it  might  be. 
We  think,  however,  that  all  non-Episcopal  Churches 
would  consent  to  act  with  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
establishment  of  many  central  boards  whose  duty  it  would 
be  to  look  after  matters  within  the  particular  districts  com- 
mon to  all,  including,  if  requested,  the  ordaining  of  all 
candidates  for  the  Ministry  within  said  district.  Canon 
Wilson  told  the  University  in  the  sermon  referred  to  that 
the  time  would  seem  to  have  come  “ for  a re-examination 
of  the  subject  of  Apostolic  Succession;  for  a statement  of 
the  historical  evidence  for  or  against  the  probability  of 
the  fact,  and  the  history  of  the  development  of  the  dogma 
connected  with  it  in  its  bearing  on  the  grace  and  powers 
conferred  in  Ordination  and  Consecration.”  He  added. 


476 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


that  it  would  seem  as  if  our  Articles  xix  and  xxiii  were 
expressly  drawn  up  so  as  to  include  the  full  recognition 
of  non-Episcopal  Churches,  reminding  his  hearers  that 
“ our  Canons  of  1 603  commanded  us  to  pray  for  Christ’s 
Holy  Catholic  Church,  and  especially  for  the  Churches 
of  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland;  while  he  showed  by 
Archbishop  Tennison’s  defense  of  the  inclusion  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  in  this  prayer  that  it  referred  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland.  Referring  to  the  Ox- 
ford Movement,  with  its  appeal  to  the  historic  continuity 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  he  said  that  further  historical  re- 
search is  believed  to  have  shown  that  the  investigation  by 
its  efforts  “may  now  be  rightly  carried  back  to  a still  earlier 
age,  and  to  a still  more  primitive  conception  of  a Chris- 
tian priesthood,”  adding,  “ Such  an  examination  may  show 
that  the  approximation  now  pending  between  the  Episc  i 
pal  and  non-Episcopal  Churches  may  not  be  an  innova- 
tion but  a reversion  to  Catholic  and  primitive  principles.” 
Referring  to  the  Lambeth  Councils,  he  said,  “ Before  the 
next  conference  meets  the  Church  needs  a volume  that 
can  be  trusted  alike  for  its  historical  facts  and  for  its 
analysis  of  theological  principles,”  and  he  called  upon  the 
University  with  its  wealth  of  learning  to  undertake  this 
task. 

Surely  the  above  words  afford  sufficient  justification 
for  Bishop  Brown’s  present  volume.  In  the  midst  of  mul- 
titudinous cares  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  devote  the 
time  to  systematically  marshal  the  facts  upon  which  he 
has  based  his  great  and  timely  effort  on  behalf  of  Christian 


APPENDIX. 


477 


unity.  This  has  been  done  in  the  “ Introduction  ” and 
“Appendix”  which  accompany  his  book.  The  Univer- 
sity may  produce  a volume  which  will  surpass  in  value  the 
present  attempt,  but  Bishop  Brown  will  have  the  credit  at 
all  events  of  being  the  first  to  respond  to  Canon  Wilson’s 
now  famous  call  for  a re-investigation  of  “ The  Crux  of 
the  Unity  Problem,”  that  is  to  say,  of  the  subject  of 
Apostolic  Succession. 


V. 

BISHOP  HALL  ON  THE  APOSTOLIC 
MINISTRY. 

A CRITICISM. 

From  the  discussion  which  followed  the  amend- 
ment of  canon  xix  at  the  general  convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  1907,  and  the  de- 
bates on  “ Reunion  ” at  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1 908, 
the  need,  we  are  told,  was  made  plain  to  the  Bishop  of 
Vermont  “of  a careful  consideration  of  First  Principles 
with  regard  to  both  the  constitution  of  the  Church  and  the 
authority  of  the  Ministry.”  To  this  study.  Dr.  Hall 
informs  us,  he  at  once  set  himself,  finally  presenting  in  a 


478 


TPIE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


charge  to  his  Diocese  at  its  annual  convention  of  1910,  the 
result  of  his  two  years’  investigation.  We  have  read  care- 
fully this  charge,  published  under  the  title  of  “ The  Apos- 
tolic Ministry,”  and  although  we  have  devoted  no  little 
time  and  thought  to  its  perusal,  we  have  nevertheless  failed 
to  find  anything  of  any  particular  value  in  its  pages.  It 
appears  to  us  to  be  a very  meagre,  indefinite,  and  indeed  a 
somewhat  confused  restatement  of  assertions  which  have 
long  since  ceased  to  affect  the  general  scholar  in  his  attempt 
to  solve  the  problem  at  issue.  All  this,  however,  is  merely 
our  own  personal  opinion,  and  as  others  may  have  come 
to  a totally  different  conclusion,  we  can  but  give  here  the 
reasons  which  have  caused  us  to  take  the  view  stated. 
This  we  now  hasten  to  do,  leaving  the  reader  free  to  say 
how  much  or  how  little  they  justify  our  opinion  of  Dr. 
Hall’s  two  years’  research. 

In  the  opening  pages  ( 1 -6)  it  is  implied,  without  being 
definitely  stated,  that  before  the  establishment  of  the 
Christian  Church,  Christ  had  instituted  its  Ministry  in  His 
appointment  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  with  whom,  conse- 
quently, all  subsequent  ordering  to  the  Christian  ministry 
exclusively  belonged,  or,  after  their  decease,  to  those  ap- 
pointed by  them  to  fill  their  places.  Thus  it  is  the  Minis- 
try that  makes  the  Church,  and  not  the  Church  the  Min- 
istry. In  justification  of  this  implied  assumption.  Dr.  Hall 
then  enumerates  the  commissions  given  to  the  Apostles  by 
Christ  Himself.  He  begins  with  that  recorded  in  Matt, 
xxviii,  18-20,  which  he  represents  as  given  only  to  the 
“ Eleven  ” disciples,  for  while  it  is  conceded  that  it  may  have 


APPENDIX. 


479 


been  given  at  our  Lord’s  appearance  to  the  five  hundred 
brethren  in  Galilee,  it  was  nevertheless  meant  by  Him  to 
be  addressed  to  the  Eleven  exclusively  (p.  7,,  cf.  9,  note). 
But  the  scene  of  our  Lord’s  farewell  words  to  his  disciples 
is  involved  in  considerable  uncertainty,  many  of  the  best 
scholars  viewing  it  to  have  been  in  Galilee,  the  words  then 
spoken  being  addressed  to  all  the  assembled  brethren,  and 
not  exclusively  to  the  Eleven.  This  is  the  opinion  of 
Westcott  (Rev.  of  the  Ris.  Lord,  p.  157),  and  it  is 
amply  justified  in  the  election  of  Matthias  to  the  Aposto- 
late  as  one  who,  in  the  words  of  Peter,  had  witnessed  not 
only  the  baptism  but  also  the  ascension  of  Jesus.  Indeed, 
he  was  chosen  to  fill  the  place  of  the  deposed  Judas  on 
the  understanding  that  he,  equally  with  the  Twelve,  had 
been  a witness  to  all  the  points  in  our  Lord’s  ministry, 
and  so  could  bear  personal  testimony  to  each  well-marked 
detail.  This  proves  that  the  commission,  “ Go  ye,”  etc., 
was  heard  by  more  than  the  Eleven,  and  subsequent 
events  showed  that  it  was  not  heard  with  any  understand- 
ing of  limitation  to  any  particular  persons.  Thus  teaching 
with  converting  was  freely  undertaken  by  laymen  (Acts 
xi,  1 9-2 1 ) , nor  can  we  exclude  the  baptizing  of  their 
converts,  as  otherwise  their  work  could  hardly  have  been 
referred  to  as  the  establishing  of  Churches.  That  lay- 
men founded  the  Church  of  Antioch,  with  which  the 
Apostles  as  Apostles  had  little  if  anything  to  do,  is  the 
testimony  of  Scripture  (Acts,  ib.),  acknowledged  by  such 
scholars  as  Sanday  (The  Concep.  of  Priesthood,  p.  46), 
and  Thatcher  (The  Apostolic  Ch.,  p,  43) . Who  founded 


480 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


the  Church  of  Rome  would  appear  to  be  a subject  incapa- 
ble of  settlement  for  lack  of  evidence.  When  St.  Paul 
wrote  his  epistle  to  the  Christians  in  Rome  there  was 
already  a strong  Church  there  (Rome-HDB).  Aquila 
and  Priscilla  appear  to  have  been  members  of  it  prior 
to  their  meeting  with  Paul  (Aquila-HDB;  Moule  on 
“Romans”)  ; while  Lightfoot  gives  reason  for  thinking  that 
it  was  not  founded  by  an  Apostle  (Epis.  Rom-SDB) , but 
if  not,  then  it,  like  the  Church  of  Antioch,  was  founded 
by  laymen,  who,  in  establishing  a Church,  both  preached 
and  baptized.  The  preaching,  with  its  accompanying 
baptism  by  Philip,  was  the  exercise  of  rights  entirely  un- 
connected with  his  ordination.  This  qualified  him  merely 
to  the  “serving  of  tables”  (Acts  vi,  2-5  ) . He  preached  and 
baptized  as  a lawman  merely.  Indeed,  Hatch  is  undoubt- 
edly correct  in  representing  that  at  the  first,  laymen  exer- 
cised all  ministerial  functions  in  the  Church,  and  that  they 
only  lost  these  powers  with  the  development  of  the  official 
Ministry  (Organ.  Early  Chris.  Ch.,  p.  127).  From  all 
this  we  gather  that  it  is  Impossible  to  see  in  Matt,  xxviii,  1 8- 
20,  a commission  given  to  the  Christian  ministry  alone  but 
rather  to  the  whole  body  of  believers,  to  be  exercised  by 
each,  severally,  when  occasion  demands. 

And  now  I come  to  a matter  emphasized  by  Bishop 
Hall  from  the  usual  ecclesiastical  standpoint,  which  is  one, 
however,  which  I have  long  been  convinced  utterly  fails 
to  solve  the  problem  at  issue.  In  viewing  the  “ Twelve  ” 
apostles  as  the  special  if  not  exclusive  ministerial  envoys  of 
our  Lord,  Dr.  Hall  intimates  that  Jesus  chose  this  par- 


APPENDIX. 


481 


ticular  number  of  disciples  in  order  that  they,  as  fully 
knowing  of,  might  bear  personal  testimony  to.  His  life 
and  Ministry.  That,  individually,  their  fitness  to  be  one 
of  this  specially  elected  Twelve  included  the  possession 
of  such  knowledge,  goes  without  saying,  but  that  this  par- 
ticular number  was  ordained  merely,  or  even  primarily  for 
the  sake  of  witnessing  to  that  with  which  they  were  person- 
ally acquainted,  finds  no  support  in  Scripture.  The  apos- 
tolic number  “Twelve,”  Dean  Robinson  informs  us,  bore 
a symbolic  correspondence  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel 
(Apostle-Ency.  Bib.).  Of  the  “ Eleven  ” Prof.  Thatcher 
says,  “ they  still  expected  to  be  the  great  ones  in  the  king- 
dom, that  is,  the  restored  state  with  its  twelve  tribes,  and 
hence  it  was  necessary  that  their  broken  number  should 
be  completed.  Their  action  shows  that  they  thought  of 
their  mission  as  political,  and  as  being  directed  first  of  all, 
if  not  exclusively,  to  the  Jews.”  (Apostolic  Church, 
p.  69ff;  Acts  i,  6,  16-26.) 

Now  so  far  as  I am  aware,  no  complete  attempt  in  any 
work  intended  for  the  general  reader  has  been  made  to 
explain  why  our  Lord  chose  from  His  many  disciples  the 
two  specific  numbers  of  “Twelve”  and  “Seventy.” 
Doubtless  the  usual  neglect  of  this  investigation  is  in- 
volved in  the  difficulty  of  clearly  presenting  a satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  “Pa- 
rousia,”  or  Second  Coming  of  our  Lord.  Nevertheless,  of 
this  we  may  be  certain,  that  no  attempt  to  rightly  estimate 
the  position  of  the  Twelve  apostles  in  the  infant  Christian 
Church,  will  ever  be  successful  if  undertaken  apart  from 


482 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


the  discussion  of  the  view  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  as 
given  in  the  New  Testament  and  known  to  have  been  held 
by  the  first  disciples. 

In  referring  to  the  speedy  return  of  Jesus  to  complete 
the  kingdom  founded.  Prof.  Thatcher  says  of  this  ex- 
pectancy, “ That  this  formed  a part  of  the  common  belief 
ought  to  be  beyond  question  ” (ib.,  p.  1 26) . The  authors 
of  the  article  “Parousia”  (HDB),  say,  “The  expectation 
of  a speedy  Advent  of  Christ  to  establish  the  Messianic 
kingdom  is  one  of  the  most  prominent  features  of  the  Apos- 
tolic hope.”  But  how  had  this  hope  become  a possession 
of  the  first  disciples?  There  can  only  be  one  answer,  viz., 
from  their  interpretation  of  certain  statements  by  Jesus 
touching  this  kingdom.  Just  before  the  Ascension  the  dis- 
ciples had  asked  Jesus  whether  at  this  time  He  would  re- 
store the  Kingdom  to  Israel  (Acts  i.,  6,  7,  1 1 ).  It  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  the  Twelve  had  each  been  promised 
a throne  from  which  they  should  judge  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel  (Matt,  xix,  28),  so  that  in  their  question  we 
can  see  that  they  were  still  thinking  of  the  restoration  of 
an  earthly  Jewish  theocracy  (Prof.  Lindsay  on  “Acts”). 
Prof.  Schwartzkopff  is  of  opinion  that  the  historical  Jesus 
never  contemplated  a mission  beyond  the  Jews,  and  he 
infers  that  the  “ Eleven  ” added  a twelfth  Apostle  merely 
to  keep  intact  their  mission  as  originally  bestowed  upon  the 
leaders  of  the  first  community.  Finally,  he  refers  to  the 
emphasized  opposition  of  the  original  disciples  to  the  evan- 
gelizing of  the  Gentiles  as  proof  that  Jesus  Himself  had 
never  contemplated  any  such  extension  of  His  commission 


APPENDIX. 


483 


(The  Prophecies  of  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  220,  225,  288; 
Matt.  X.,  5;  cf.  XV.,  24).  That  Jesus  inaugurated  His 
mission  under  the  belief  that  it  was  limited  to  the  Jews 
is  evident  from  the  Scripture  quoted,  especially  in  its 
further  testimony  that  this  particular  personal  mission  of 
the  Twelve  was  to  take  up  the  entire  time  between  its 
inception  and  the  return  of  Jesus  in  Glory  (Matt,  x,  23; 
Parousia-HDB,  p.  677a) . Are  we  then,  with  Schwartz- 
kopff,  to  attribute  to  Jesus  an  entirely  mistaken  notion  as  to 
the  extent  of  His  mission?  On  the  contrary,  it  seems  to 
us  that  the  difficulty  of  the  problem  finds  solution  in  the 
acceptance  of  the  view  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus  from  their 
lack  of  spiritual  insight  failed  to  keep  abreast  with  their 
Master’s  development  in  His  conception  of  His  mission. 
Submitting  His  spirit  from  the  beginning  to  be  taught 
by  the  same  gradual  revelation  which  comes  naturally  to 
all  great  minds.  He  had  at  first  arranged  merely  for  a 
mission  to  the  Jews,  since  He  was  divinely  conscious  that 
He  had  been  sent  primarily  to  them  as  their  Messiah.  It 
was  not  until  the  approach  of  death  that  He  saw  clearly 
how  absolutely  they  had  rejected  Him,  and  He  then  be- 
came conscious  that  His  mission  had  actually  comprised 
the  whole  world  and  not  merely  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 
Thus  it  was  that  after  His  resurrection  He  bestowed  a 
universal  commission  upon  a larger  circle  of  His  disciples, 
such  as  the  five  hundred  brethren,  a final  commission  in 
which  that  previously  given  to  the  Twelve  was  absorbed, 
and  its  exclusiveness  lost  forever.  But  His  Jewish  dis- 
ciples, as  led  by  the  “ Eleven,”  were  slow  to  realize  the 


484 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


change,  if  indeed  they  ever  realized  it,  which  is  doubtful. 
They  seem  to  the  last  to  have  been  incapable  of  breaking 
away  from  the  belief  that  the  Gospel  message  meant  pri- 
marily the  restoration  of  the  kingdom  to  Israel.  It  was 
not  one  of  the  Twelve  but  a Hellenist  that  first  proclaimed 
the  end  of  Judaism,  declaring  that  neither  the  Temple 
nor  the  law  of  Moses  was  necessary  to  the  worship  of  God. 
The  following  year  the  Samaritans  received  the  Gospel 
from  another  Hellenist,  and  the  two  Apostles,  Peter  and 
John,  were  sent  to  confirm  the  work  done.  Y et  it  was  not 
till  eleven  years  more  that  any  approach  was  made  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  then  it  required  a special  revelation  to  Peter 
to  show  him  that  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  fellow-heirs  with 
the  Jews.  The  Church  of  Jerusalem,  after  hearing  his 
report,  while  willing  to  acknowledge  the  facts,  never- 
theless insisted  upon  a sharply  drawn  dividing  line  between 
the  Jews  and  Gentile  Christians  (Gall,  ii,  9,  12,  13.), 
finally  entering  into  an  arrangement  for  Peter,  as  their 
representative,  going  to  the  Jews,  and  Paul  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. Their  failure,  however,  to  understand  the  scope  of 
the  Gospel  lost  the  Twelve  their  leadership  in  the  spread 
of  Christianity,  this  honor  passing  to  others,  for  upon  the 
death  of  Stephen,  laymen  were  the  first  to  commence  the 
Church’s  missionary  work  (Acts  xi,  19). 

Now  in  Bishop  Hall  insisting  that  the  original  Apostles 
were  the  specially  appointed  officers  or  organs  of  the 
Church,  he  is  attempting  to  bring  once  more  into  activity 
the  original  policy  of  the  completed  Twelve  in  their  effort 
to  confine  the  Gospel  to  the  renewing  of  Judaism.  Indeed, 


APPENDIX. 


485 


his  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession  is,  as 
the  great  English  Nonconformist  expressed  it, — “an  at- 
tempt to  build  a Jewish  portico  on  to  the  Christian  Tem- 
ple.” But  this  can  no  more  be  done  to-day  than  it  could 
in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  themselves.  These  latter  failed 
in  such  an  attempt,  and  no  wonder,  seeing  that  it  was 
entirely  contrary  to  the  final  teaching  of  the  Master.  If 
then  the  Apostles  failed,  is  it  to  be  expected  that  their 
so-called  representatives  will  have  any  better  success? 

The  mistake  made  by  Bishop  Hall  and  his  school,  so 
it  seems  to  us,  is  their  belief  that  a man’s  religion 
is  to  be  under  as  complete  external  supervision  as  his 
medical  or  legal  affairs  (p.  4).  They  seem  to  forget  that 
the  symbol  of  the  rent  temple  veil  implies  that  hence- 
forth the  individual  may  pass  at  once  into  the  very  pres- 
ence of  God  and  learn  of  Him  direct  what  is  needful  for 
his  spiritual  life.  A further  mistake  is  Dr.  Hall’s  refer- 
ence to  the  apostolic  fellowship  of  Acts  ii,  42  (p.  11), 
with  the  inference  that  this  term  merely  signifies  compan- 
ionship or  association,  whereas  it  may  equally  mean  distri- 
bution (Hammond  on  Acts).  The  disciples  brought  to 
the  Apostles  their  goods,  receiving  from  them  as  each  man 
had  need,  and  it  was  this  apostolic  communication  that 
they  continued  in  and  not  a mere  fellowship.  Nor  is  Dr. 
Hall  any  happier  in  his  selection  of  Scriptural  references 
to  prove  that  the  Churches  were  subject  to  apostolic  au- 
thority (ib) . Prof.  Gwatkin  says  that  “the  Apostle  is  not 
a regular  ruler  in  the  same  sense  as  a modern  Bishop,  but 
an  occasional  referee,  like  the  visitor  of  a college,  who  acts 


486 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  EOR  CHtJRCH  UNION. 


only  in  case  of  special  need”  (Apostle-HDB).  Prof. 
Sanday,  after  a thorough  examination  of  the  question,  finds 
no  trace  that  the  Twelve  Apostles  were  invested  with  any 
specific  authority  as  rulers  of  the  Churches  (Conception  of 
Priesthood,  p.  42,  ff).  Prof.  Lindsay  is  also  of  opin- 
ion that  the  Apostles  did  not  exhibit  any  evidence  of  their 
exercising  an  exclusive  or  sole  authority  over  the  Churches 
(Acts,  pp.  44,  83).  The  Prophets  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment seem  to  have  acted  with  authority  equal  to  the 
Apostles  except  that  they  did  not  share  in  the  care  of  the 
Churches.  This  fell  to  the  Apostles  although  equally  to 
the  Elders  associated  with  them.  To  conclude,  there  is  no 
evidence  anywhere  that  the  Apostles  had  peculiar  func 
tions  and  responsibilities  which  were  not  equally  shared 
by  others  (p.  11). 

The  association  by  Dr.  Hall  of  Chillingworth’s  ut- 
terance on  Episcopacy  with  that  of  the  Preface  to  our 
Ordinal  is  unfortunate,  since  what  the  former  actually  in- 
dicates is  that  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  Episcopal 
government  has  continued  to  this  day  through  an  un- 
broken succession  of  its  own  particular  order,  whereas  all 
that  this  Preface  as  originally  worded  indicated,  is  that  the 
orders  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  have  existed  from 
the  time  of  the  Apostles.  A complete  Episcopal  govern- 
ment necessarily  includes  Episcopal  ordering  of  the  Minis- 
try. This,  consequently,  Chillingworth  represents  to  have 
been  universally  received  in  the  Church  presently  after 
the  Apostles’  time.  But  this.  Bishop  Wordsworth  is 
able  to  maintain  only  from  the  time  of  the  case  of  Collu- 


APPENDIX. 


487 


thus  in  A.  D.  324  (Min,  Gra,  p.  169).  For  many  years 
after  the  time  of  the  Apostles  the  Churches  of  Rome  and 
Alexandria  had  their  Bishops  consecrated  by  Presbyters. 
Indeed,  both  Bishops  Lightfoot  and  Wordsworth  show 
that  in  other  churches,  for  some  time  after  the  Apostles 
had  all  passed  away.  Presbyters  were  their  sole  rulers. 
Exclusive  Episcopal  government  may  have  been  the  rule 
of  the  Catholic  Church  from  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century,  but  it  certainly  was  not  prior  to  that  period. 
Cranmer  composed  the  original  Preface  to  our  Ordinal, 
and  there  is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  he  absolutely 
rejected  the  idea  of  Episcopacy  as  essential  to  the  ordering 
of  the  Ministry.  As  amended  in  1 662,  our  present  Pref- 
ace so  indicates,  but  such  an  inference  is  utterly  contrary 
both  to  Scripture  and  early  Church  history. 

Bishop  Hall  next  quotes  the  testimony  of  the  apostolic 
fathers.  He  begins  with  Clement  of  Rome.  But  Clem- 
ent’s evidence  makes  against,  and  not  for.  Bishop  Hall’s 
contention.  He  would  have  us  believe  that  the  other  dis- 
tinguished men  of  Clement  xliv,  1-3,  correspond  to  men 
of  apostolic  appointment,  like  Timothy  and  Titus,  to  whom 
the  right  of  appointment  to  the  Ministry  was  committed, 
that  is,  by  the  Apostles  (p.  24,  note).  Sanday,  however, 
rejects  this  view,  seeing  here  no  one  in  a direct  line  of 
descent  from  the  Apostles,  but  merely  “those  whom  the 
Church  most  trusted’’  (ib.,  p.  72).  Bishop  Hall  quotes 
Lightfoot  as  testifying  to  the  Episcopate  of  Clement,  but 
Wordsworth  sees  in  Clement  no  more  than  the  president 
of  a college  of  Presbyters  (id.,  p.  106),  while  he  thinks 


488 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


that  down  to  A.  D.  140  Rome  was  still  governed  by  a 
body  of  Presbyters.  Here  he  is  supported  by  Lightfoot, 
who  places  the  adoption  of  the  Episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment by  Rome  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  (Apos- 
tolic fathers,  Vol.  i,  part  ii,  p.  384). 

We  are  next  referred  to  Ignatius  who,  we  are  told,  knew 
of  no  other  than  an  Episcopal  form  of  government.  This, 
Bishop  Hall  concludes  from  his  statement,  “the  bishops 
that  are  settled  in  the  furthest  parts  of  the  earth.”  But 
Lightfoot  dismisses  this  with  the  explanation  that  “At  the 
most  it  is  a natural  hyperbole.” 

Now  Bishop  Hall  wrote  his  charge  with  Lightfoot’s 
“Apostolic  Fathers,”  and  Lindsay’s  “The  Church  and 
the  Ministry,”  within  reach  of  his  hand,  and  yet  he  misrep- 
resented both  writers.  We  are  told  to  refer  to  this  work 
of  Lightfoot,  the  inference  being  that  he  confirms  Dr. 
Hall’s  contention  that  Ignatius  knew  of  no  other  than  the 
Episcopal  form  of  Church  government  (p.  26).  On  the 
contrary,  he  does  the  very  opposite.  In  referring  to  the 
manner  in  which  Polycarp  had  addressed  the  Church  of 
Philippi,  “ to  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons,”  he  adds.  “If 
Ignatius  had  been  writing  to  this  Church,  he  would  doubt- 
less have  done  the  same.”  Ignatius,  however,  wrote  to  the 
Church  of  Rome  without  any  reference  to  its  Bishop. 
Lightfoot  thinks  that  Rome  had  an  Episcopacy  in  some 
form  or  other  at  this  time,  but  that  it  was  not  developed  as 
in  Asia  Minor.  He  even  thinks  that  it  had  so  far  de- 
veloped that  here  it  was  already  a distinct  office  from  the 
Presbyterate  (ib.,  p.  381.,  cf.  383,  384).  At  the  same 


APPENDIX. 


489 


lime,  in  his  “Dissertations”  he  tells  us  plainly  that  we  must 
not  suppose  Clement  to  have  occupied  “ the  same  isolated 
position  of  authority  as  was  occupied”  by  his  contempo- 
raries, Ignatius  of  Antioch  and  Polycarp  of  Smyrna.  He 
was  rather  “the  chief  of  the  Presbyters  than  the  chief  over 
the  Presbyters.”  These  words  somewhat  modify  his  state- 
ment that  at  this  period  the  Episcopate  existed  as  a distinct 
office  from  the  Presbyterate  in  the  Roman  Church,  while 
they  corroborate  his  subsequent  representation  in  the  same 
work,  that  Episcopacy  was  not  introduced  into  Rome 
until  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  All  this  shows 
the  inaccuracy  of  Bishop  Hall  in  representing  Clement  as 
“what  would  have  been  designated  in  later  times  by  the 
name  of  Bishop”  (p.  24).  Indeed,  by  his  further  state- 
ment already  quoted,  that  Ignatius  evidently  knew  of  no 
other  than  an  Episcopal  form  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment, one  would  imagine  that  he  had  never  read  Light- 
foot’s  “Apostolic  Fathers,”  or,  at  least,  that  he  had  read 
this  work  to  no  purpose.  Writing  of  the  conception  of 
Episcopacy  in  the  Ignatlan  epistles,  Lightfoot  says  of  the 
author,  “There  is  no  indication  that  he  is  upholding  the 
Episcopal  against  any  other  form  of  Church  government. 

It  is  the  recognized  authority  of  the  Churches 
which  the  writer  addresses  ” (Apos.  Fat.,  Vol.  i,  part  il,  p. 
382).  This,  therefore,  is  the  explanation  why  Ignatius  did 
not  refer  to  its  Bishop  in  his  letter  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Its  Episcopacy  was  not  that  which  he  had  been  so  strenu- 
ously advocating  throughout  his  various  letters.  Its  Bishop, 
if  it  had  one  at  this  time,  was  merely  the  chief  of,  and  not 


490 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


the  chief  over  its  Presbyters.  Evidently,  therefore,  to  avoid 
any  misunderstanding  he  addressed  his  letter  to  the  Romans 
in  the  name  of  the  Church  and  not  of  its  officials.  Bishop 
Hall  quotes  Prof.  Lindsay  as  admitting  that  “according 
to  the  conception  of  Ignatius,  every  Christian  community 
ought  to  have  at  its  head  a Bishop,  a Presbyterium  or 
session  of  Elders,  and  a body  of  Deacons,”  but  he  failed 
to  quote  his  previous  statement  that  the  writings  of  Ignatius 
“are  not  to  be  taken  as  proof  that  the  Ignatian  conception 
of  what  the  threefold  Ministry  ought  to  be  existed  in  any 
part  of  the  Church  whatever.”  Here  Lightfoot  agrees 
with  Lindsay,  consequently.  Bishop  Hall  is  without  one 
shred  of  evidence  for  asserting  that  Ignatius  knew  of  no 
other  than  an  Episcopal  form  of  Church  government; 
while,  as  we  have  seen,  he  misrepresents  both  of  these 
writers  in  attempting  to  prove  his  unfounded  assertion. 

Irenaeus  is  next  quoted,  but  to  no  effect,  since  Lightfoot 
has  shown  that  this  father  did  not  regard  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  as  distinct  in  order,  but  only  in  office.  In  other 
words,  that  they  formed  but  one  order  and  differed  only 
in  degree  (Dissertations). 

Finally,  Tertullian  is  quoted,  who,  however,  we  think, 
rather  tends  to  destroy  Bishop  Hall’s  contention,  since 
this  father  while  appearing  to  make  much  of  apostolic 
descent,  nevertheless  affirms,  “That  which  has  constitu- 
ted the  difference  between  the  governing  body  and  its 
ordinary  members  is  the  authority  of  the  Church”  (Hatch, 
p.  124).  In  an  appendix.  Bishop  Hall  endeavors  to  dis- 
credit this  statement  on  the  ground  that  it  wa,s  made  after 


APPENDIX. 


491 


Tertullian  had  left  the  Church,  a circumstance,  however, 
which,  even  if  ecclesiastically  true,  in  no  sense  affects  its 
accuracy.  Further,  in  his  anxiety  to  account  for  Tertul- 
lian’s  sanction  of  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist  by  a lay- 
man, with  his  apparent  denial  of  any  real  difference  be- 
tween a layman  and  a Priest  (p.  47),  Bishop  Hall  seems 
in  this  instance  to  have  entirely  overlooked  the  Church’s 
acceptance  of  the  validity  of  lay-baptism,  together  with 
the  fact  that  in  the  early  Church,  as  recorded  even  in  Scrip- 
ture itself  (Acts  ii,  46),  laymen  celebrated  the  eucharist 
as  a usual  thing.  Apart  from  this  evidence,  however, 
which  we  are  about  to  consider,  it  is  a mere  matter  of 
common  sense  that  if  a layman  is  qualified  to  administer 
baptism,  he  is  equally  qualified  to  administer  the  commun- 
ion, no  greater  authority  being  required  for  the  one  than 
the  other.  Bishop  Hall  is  of  course  shocked  that  Tertul- 
lian should  intimate  that  there  is  no  real  difference  between 
a Christian  layman  and  a Christian  Priest,  except,  of 
course,  what  the  Church  Itself  makes.  But  a Priest  in 
the  Anglican  Church  is  nothing  but  a Presbyter,  and  a 
Presbyter  is  nothing  but  an  officer  appointed  the 
Church  to  administer  in  an  orderly  manner  functions  which 
belong  equally  to  every  member.  This  was  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  the  Anglican  Reformers,  as  may  be  seen  in 
Tyndale’s  own  words  when  explaining  the  meaning  of 
Presbyter  (Blakeney  on  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
p.  521).  And  this  is  fully  accepted  by  Bishop  Light- 
foot,  who  in  denying  that  the  Sacerdotal  or  Priestly  title  is 
ever  conferred  upon  the  Church’s  officers,  affirms,  “The 


493 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


only  Priests  under  the  Gospel  ...  are  the  saints, 
the  members  of  the  Christian  brotherhood”  (Disserta- 
tions). 

And  now  we  come  to  the  examination  of  Acts  ii,  42. 
Here  we  are  told  that  after  their  daily  attendance  at  the 
Temple  the  general  body  of  disciples,  numbering  over 
three  thousand  souls,  broke  bread  at  home.  It  is  an  er- 
roneous exegesis  that  sees  here  the  breaking  of  bread  in  the 
particular  “upper  room,”  or  several  rooms  appointed  for 
the  purpose.  The  meaning  of  the  statement  is,  as  Stanley 
explains,  that  the  “believers  at  Jerusalem  are  described 
as  partaking  of  a daily  meal  in  their  private  houses,  as 
part  of  their  religious  devotions”  (Chris.  Institu.,  p.  44). 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  died  in  A.  D.  213,  shows 
that  in  his  day  this  Jerusalem  custom  was  still  in  vogue, 
the  head  of  the  house  in  each  home  being  the  celebrant 
(Allen-Chris.  Institu.,  p.  522).  In  discussing  Clement’s 
representation.  Dr.  Bigg  shows  that  here  “the  house  father 
is  the  house  Priest”  (Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria, 
pp.  1 02-1 06) . So  it  must  have  been  at  first  in  Jerusalem, 
as  this  is  not  only  to  be  inferred  from  the  expression  “at 
home,”  as  the  place  where  the  bread  was  broken  (Acts 
ii,  42.  RV),  but  the  more  than  three  thousand  disciples 
could  not  have  been  accommodated  with  daily  meals  of 
which  the  eucharist  formed  the  closing  part,  except  in 
their  own  homes.  Further,  as  there  were  at  this  time 
but  the  Twelve  Apostles  occupying  an  official  position, 
these  could  not  have  distributed  themselves  to  be  present 
in  all  these  homes  to  daily  celebrate  the  eucharist.  All 


APPENDIX. 


493 


this  shows  that  it  must  have  been  celebrated  by  laymen, 
and  Clement’s  testimony  to  this  end  settles  the  matter 
conclusively. 

As  for  Tertullian’s  statement  that  “where  three  Chris- 
tians are,  though  they  be  laymen,  there  is  a Church,’’  this 
is  borne  out  by  Christ’s  assurance  that  where  two  or  three 
are  gathered  together  in  His  name  He  is  with  them  ( Matt, 
xviii,  20).  Indeed,  Tertullian  finds  further  support  in  the 
statement  of  the  supposed  champion  of  Episcopacy,  Igna- 
tius, who  says,  “where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Catholic 
Church’’  (Epls.  Smyr.). 

In  summing  up  the  evidence  drawn  from  the  Fathers 
quoted.  Bishop  Hall  claims  to  have  shown  that  from  the 
first  the  established  method  of  conveying  ministerial  au- 
thority was  limited  to  the  Episcopate.  But  this,  we  beg 
leave  to  assert,  he  has  not  shown  by  one  definite  statement 
to  that  effect.  In  his  “ Dissertations,”  Lightfoot  showed 
that  early  in  the  second  century  “ Episcopacy  did  not  exist 
at  all  among  the  Philippians,”  and  similar  evidence  shows 
that  it  was  not  yet  established  in  Corinth  or  Thessalonica, 
Indeed,  the  same  evidence  upon  which  Lightfoot  concludes 
that  there  was  no  Bishop  at  Philippi  early  in  the  second 
century,  that  is,  nothing  beyond  the  presidency  of  a 
chief  Presbyter  in  these  Churches,  shows  that  at  this  period 
there  was  no  Bishop  of  Rome.  Thus  Allen  is  justified  in 
asserting  that  in  calling  Clement  Bishop  of  Rome, 
as  apparently  Bishop  Hall  desires  to  do  (pp.  24,  26),  it 
“is  an  anachronism  if  we  speak  from  the  point  of  view 
of  his  own  age  ” (ib.,  p.  54).  I note  of  course  that  Dr. 


494 


- THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


Hall  says  that  Clement  “must  have  been  in  fact  what 
would  have  been  designated  in  later  times  by  the  name 
Bishop.”  But  this  only  brings  out  more  clearly  Dr.  Hall’s 
mistake.  There  was  no  actual  analogy  here,  but  at  the 
most  a mere  slight  correspondence  between  the  supposed 
Episcopate  of  Clement  and  that  even  of  his  contemporaries 
Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  let  alone  of  a later  age,  a corre- 
spondence so  slight  that  Bishop  Wordsworth  feels  no 
hesitation  in  representing  that  there  was  no  Bishop  of 
Rome  at  this  period  (MG,  p.  126).  As  for  Dr.  Hall’s 
attempt  to  show  that  the  transmission  of  the  Ministry  has 
been  limited  to  the  Episcopate,  the  canons  of  Hippolytus 
show  conclusively  that,  as  Dr.  Lindsay  claims,  in  the  early 
Roman  Church  Presbyters  consecrated  Bishops  (The 
Church  and  the  Ministry)  ; while  Bishop  Wordsworth  is 
of  opinion  that  at  Rome  and  Alexandria  to  the  beginning 
of  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  the  Bishop,  if  a Pres- 
byter, required  no  further  ordination  (ib.,  129  136). 

It  is  somewhat  amusing  to  find  Bishop  Hall,  after  laying 
down  a most  positive  theory  of  the  Apostolic  Succession, 
which  shuts  out  all  those  not  ordained  through  an  historic 
Episcopate,  calmly  asserting,  “ At  the  same  time  it  is  right 
to  say  that  the  acceptance  of  no  theory  of  the  Apostolic 
Succession  is  required  of  either  the  lay  people  or  the 
Clergy.  ...  So  long  as  the  generally  accepted 
rule  of  the  Church  is  observed,  varying  conceptions  as  to 
the  grounds  of  Its  necessity  may  be  held.  This,  as  I under- 
stand It,  is  the  legitimate  interpretation  of  the  phrase  ‘the 
Historic  Episcopate  ’ ” (p.  38).  Now  this  means  simply 


APPENDIX. 


495 


that  the  Historic  Episcopate  as  understood  by  Bishop  Hall 
and  his  school  must  be  accepted  without  any  question  as  to 
its  warrant  in  Scripture  or  early  Church  history,  although 
privately  its  accepter  may  hold  any  opinion  of  it  he  pleases. 
Finally,  he  describes  what  is  meant  by  the  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession as  the  sharing  of  the  ministerial  commission  with 
as  full  authority  as  those  whom  Christ  first  sent  in  His 
name.  But  how  is  this  authority  to  be  acquired?  One 
way  is  by  entering  into  the  fellowship  of  those  whom 
Christ  first  sent  forth.  But  as  the  gateway  into  this  fel- 
lowship is  the  Historic  Episcopate  as  understood  by  Dr. 
Hall,  someone  after  all  is  to  hold  a very  definite  theory 
as  to  what  actually  constitutes  the  Apostolic  Succession. 
Surely  we  have  here  both  confusion  and  contradiction.  In 
concluding  his  charge.  Dr.  Hall  objected  to  the 
phrase  “ Back  to  Christ,”  preferring  the  looking  “ up 
to  Christ”  as  present  to-day  in  grace  and  power, 
since  the  knowledge  of  Christ  after  the  flesh  counts  for 
very  little  (pp.  42,  43).  It  is,  he  tells  us,  “the  upward 
gaze  which  gains  a right  conception  of  His  person.  And 
so  with  regard  to  the  Ministry,  its  mission  and  authority. 
We  must  not  be  content  with  looking  back  to  Jesus  in 
Palestine;  we  must  look  up  to  Him  at  God’s  right  hand, 
and  therefore  in  the  midst  of  His  Church,  now  sending  and 
enabling  His  Ministers,  with  whom  and  through  whom 
He  works  by  the  Spirit  which  He  breathes  on  them, 
as  on  His  first  Apostles.” 

Now  just  before  the  above  words.  Dr.  Hall  had  con- 
ceded that  the  warrant  for  a Ministry  sent  by  Christ  could 


496 


THE  LEVEL  PLAN  FOR  CHURCH  UNION. 


be  shown  “by  extraordinary  signs  of  His  commission;” 
yet  he  closes  with  the  statement  that  “anything  short  of  a 
whole-hearted  acceptance  of  the  claim  of  an  Episcopal 
Ministry  would  be  an  unsatisfactory  basis  for  union  ” 
(p.  53).  Now  surely  here,  as  in  the  matter  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Succession,  we  have  both  confusion  and  contradiction. 
What  are  the  extraordinary  signs  of  Christ’s  commission 
which  a Ministry  must  show  as  warrant  for  the  exercise 
of  its  functions?  Is  more  required  than  was  exhibited  by 
Paul?  It  was  his  success  amongst  the  Gentiles  that  won 
him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  (Gal.  il,  8,  9).  It  was  his  suc- 
cess with  the  Corinthians  which  he  took  to  be  the  seal  of 
his  Apostleship  to  them  (1  Cor.  ix,  2).  Have  not  the 
great  orthodox  Churches,  in  their  success  at  home  and 
abroad  in  winning  souls  for  Christ,  shown  as  much  evi- 
dence to  their  call  of  God  as  Paul  showed  by  the  success 
of  his  work?  Why  then  are  they  to  be  denied  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship  except  through  the  medium  of  an  Epis- 
copal Ministry?  Bishop  Hall  and  his  school  in  their 
insistence  upon  the  Apostolic  Succession  are  supported 
neither  by  logic  nor  Scripture,  while  to  us  their  whole  ef- 
fort to  defend  their  position  is  characterized  by  confusion  of 
thought  and  inaccuracy  of  historical  statement. 


INDEX 


A ARON  and  Moses,  not  founders 

^ of  the  Jewish  Sacerdotal  priest- 
hood, 1 29. 

Abbott,  Prof.,  remarks  concerning  the 
celebrated  case  of  Travers  who, 
though  only  in  Presbyterian  orders, 
exercised  his  Ministry  in  England, 

432f. 

Age,  advantage  of,  to  Churches,  5f. 

Age  of  Church,  not  a guarantee  of 
superiority  in  ecclesiastical  organi- 
zations, 315. 

Alford,  Dean,  asserts  the  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession  through  the 
Episcopate  to  be  without  founda- 
tion in  New  Testament,  393f. 

Allen,  Prof.,  supports  Republican 
doctrine  of  the  equality  of  non- 
Episcopal  with  Episcopal  minis- 
tries, 208. 

America,  the  natural  stage  for  the  in- 
auguration of  world-wide  Repub- 
lican movements,  193. 

Analogies,  of  Episcopate  provided  for 
in  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  with  the  Ignatian  Congre- 
gational Episcopate,  197. 

Ananias  of  Damascus,  Dr.  Hort  shows 
that  he  was  a layman  when  he 
baptized  St.  Paul,  148f. 

Anderson,  Bishop,  on  the  possibility  of 
Church  union,  372. 

Anglican  and  American  Episcopates, 
historicity  of,  not  the  same,  187. 

Anglican  Catholics,  leadership  of, 
would  be  ruinous,  106. 

Anglican  Churches,  undoubtedly  Prot- 
estant, 95,  106f;  Protestant  and 


must  continue  so,  11  Of;  their  plan 
for  Church  union,  192;  natural 
centers  of  national  unity,  194;  doc- 
trine of  their  Sacerdotalists  con- 
cerning Apostolic  Succession,  202. 

Anglican  ordinal,  its  design,  institution 
to  an  office ; not  the  giving  of 
ministerial  character,  120f. 

Anglican  Presbyter,  his  answer  to 
Bishop  Hall’s  “ The  Apostolic 
Ministry,”  xxii. 

Anthropologist,  on  the  heathen  origin 
of  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession, 128. 

Antioch,  Church  of,  founded  by  lay- 
men, 448f. 

Antiochian  Elders,  Dr.  Hort  shows 
them  to  have  been  laymen  when 
they  ordained  Sts.  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas, I48f. 

Apollos,  a layman  preacher,  140f. 

Apostles,  a grade,  not  order,  in  the 
New  Testament  ministry,  125; 
had  no  official  successors,  126; 
those  of  Jesus  and  Wesley,  135f; 
the  commission  of  Jesus  to,  based 
on  love,  not  authority,  1 38 ; the 
commission  of  the  Church  given 
to  the  people  as  a whole,  not  to 
them  alone,  428f. 

Apostolate,  not  originally  the  exclusive 
source  of  ministerial  authority,  430. 

Apostolic  Age,  the,  in  the  Ten  Epochs 
of  Church  History  quotation  from, 
in  justification  of  the  basis  upon 
which  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  is  rested,  320. 

Apostolic  Fathers,  quotations  from,  in 


498 


INDEX. 


support  of  the  original  equality  of 
Elders  and  Bishops,  46f. 

Apostolic  Succession,  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine of,  xii;  doctrine  of,  as  held 
by  High  Churchmen  of  fifty  years 
ago,  6f;  evidence  for  and  against 
the  High  Church  doctrine,  6f;  in 
the  New  Testament,  Christian  as- 
sociations are  called  Churches  be- 
fore possessing  an  apostolic  min- 
istry, 16;  doctrine  of,  as  applied 
to  the  monarchial  Episcopate  not 
general  before  A.  D.  200,  45 ; 
doctrine  of,  said  to  have  been 
promulgated  first  by  Irenaeus,  47 ; 
Romans  reject  Anglican  claim  to, 
117f;  Greeks  reject  Anglican 
claim  to,  117f;  if  there  is  any 
such  succession,  it  has  lapsed  in 
the  Anglican  Churches,  120f; 
three  facts  showing  that  Sacer- 
dotal doctrine  of,  will  not  stand, 
121  ; doctrine  of,  derived  from 
heathenism,  128;  originally  be- 
lieved to  be  concerned  with  the 
Gospel  doctrine,  not  ministerial 
authority,  15If;  a conclusive  fact 
against  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of, 
151;  quotation  from  Dean  Saba- 
tier respecting  the  worthlessness 
of  the  tradition  upon  which  it  is 
founded,  306f;  Bishop  Hall’s  ad- 
mission that  the  transmission  of 
ministerial  authority  is  not  limited 
to  the  Episcopate,  317;  Bishop 
Hall’s  admission  that  no  theory  re- 
specting it  is  of  ecclesiastical  obli- 
gation, 318;  Bishop  Hall’s  admis- 
sion that  the  difference  between 
Episcopal  and  non-Episcopal  ordi- 
nation is  a matter  of  changeable, 
ecclesiastical  discipline,  not  of  un- 
changing faith,  318;  assertion  of 
Professor  Ramsay  that  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  Episcopate  was  yet 
far  from  having  reached  the  mo- 
narchial stage  when  I Peter  was 
written,  328;  doctrine  of,  not 
known  to  the  primitive  Church  nor 
fully  accepted  until  the  5th  cen- 


tury, 339f;  declaration  of  Alford, 
Robinson  and  Rashdall  as  to  its 
being  without  historical  basis,  393f; 
declaration  of  Anglican  Reforma- 
tion Bishops  to  the  effect  that  Epis- 
copacy is  of  human  origin,  405f; 
quotation  from  St.  Jerome  against 
the  doctrine,  405  f;  tradition  re- 
specting the  founding  of  Episco- 
pacy by  St.  John,  405f;  canons 
of  Hippolytus  and  a Republican 
Episcopate,  452f;  Bishop  Gore 
and  Dr.  Stone  do  not  include 
within  the  covenant  members  of 
the  Churches  which  are  without 
the  Historic  Episcopate,  452f;  the 
assertion  of  Bishop  Gore  and  Dr. 
Stone  that  the  New  Testament 
Elders  constituted  a plural  Epis- 
copate with  power  to  perpetuate 
the  Apostolate  by  ordination,  re- 
futed, 454f;  admission  of  Abbe 
Duchesne  that  Bishops  were  or- 
dained by  Presbyters,  455f;  Pres- 
byterial  and  Episcopal  Succession 
identically  the  same,  465f;  doc- 
trine of,  cannot  be  proved,  470f; 
Canon  Wilson’s  call  for  a rein- 
vestigation of  its  historical  basis, 
476f.  (See  also  “ Bishop  ” and 
**  Episcopate.”) 

Appeal  for  a Republican  ministry, 
231  f;  to  the  Churches,  371. 

Appendix,  it  and  Introduction  to  The 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
excellency  of,  xix;  its  original  ar- 
guments in  favor  of  author’s  posi- 
tion, xix  f ; its  answer  to  Bishop 
Hall’s  “ The  Apostolic  Ministry,” 
xxii;  value  of,  from  view  of  mod- 
ern scholarship,  83. 

Aquila,  a lay  preacher,  I40f. 

Ark,  God’s  care  of  it  because  of  Noah 
and  his  family,  24f. 

Arkansas,  State,  in  people,  not  in  Gov- 
ernor, 102;  Diocese,  in  people,  not 
in  Bishop,  102;  an  illustration 
showing  episcopal  jurisdiction  to 
be  limited  to  souls,  not  by  terri- 
torial boundaries,  246. 


INDEX. 


499 


Asia  Minor,  why  Bishops  are  found 
here  instead  of  Presbyters,  29f; 
Congregational  Churches  of  New 
Testament  times  the  same  as  De- 
nominational Churches  in  the 
United  States,  21  If. 

Athanasius,  validly  baptized  by  a child, 

226f. 

Author,  position  of,  xxviii ; his  friendly 
challenge,  84;  his  theory  of  the 
Episcopate,  115f;  his  changes  of 
view  respecting  the  necessity  for  re- 
ordination  of  non-Episcopal  Min- 
isters, 183f. 

Bancroft,  his  doctrine  of  the 
Episcopate,  113;  first  Anglican 
to  assert  Divine  right  of  Bishops, 

443f. 

Baptism,  Tertullian’s  testimony  as  to 
its  administration  by  laymen,  14f; 
validity  of,  when  administered  by 
a layman,  98f;  validly  adminis- 
tered to  Athanasius  by  a child, 
226f;  lay,  270;  it  and  the  Holy 
Communion,  not  originally  cele- 
brated as  Sacerdotal  Sacraments, 
336f;  effects  of,  supernatural,  but 
not  unnaturally  so,  348f;  benefits 
of,  a change  of  relationship,  not 
the  infusion  of  the  Christ  life, 
362;  right  to  administer  given  in 
the  commission  to  the  five  hundred, 

442f. 

Baptist  Church,  has  Episcopate,  190; 
It,  Presbyterian,  Methodist  and 
Disciple  Churches,  possibility  of 
their  uniting,  377. 

Barlow,  regarded  ordination  to  Epis- 
copate as  institution  to  an  office  not 
a creation  of  an  Episcopal  char- 
acter, 1 20f . 

Barnabas,  St.,  ordination  of,  could  not 
have  been  an  infusion  of  minis- 
terial character,  147f;  Dr.  Hort, 
shows  that  he  was  a layman,  148f. 
Barry,  Bishop,  statement  of,  the  doc- 
trine of  Episcopacy,  393  f;  quota- 
tion from,  on  Episcopal  ordination, 
393f;  remarks  of,  concerning  the 


celebrated  case  of  Travers  who, 
though  only  in  Presbyterian  orders, 
exercised  his  ministry  in  England, 

432f. 

Basis  for  Church  Union,  necessarily 
level,  97 ; that  of  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  the  assumption  of 
no  essential  difference  between 
Christian  churches  and  ministries, 

244. 

Bilson,  Bishop,  first  Anglican  to  fully 
assert,  in  1593,  the  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession,  413f. 

Bingham,  his  interpretation  of  Ter- 
tullian  respecting  the  appointment 
by  the  Apostles  of  Bishops,  open 
to  question,  I 1 . 

Bishop,  use  of  title  not  confined  to 
Christianity,  I2f;  use  of  the  title 
in  the  Septuagint,  I2f;  use  of  title 
in  Greek  literature,  12f;  St.  Peter’s 
two-fold  use  of  the  title,  I2f;  a 
title  synonymous  with  that  of  Pres- 
byter, 12f;  duties  of,  12f;  office 
of,  came  into  being  as  the  result 
of  a natural  development,  I2f; 
Bishops  and  Deacons  appointed  to 
their  offices  by  the  people,  I2f; 
origin  and  identity  of  the  Episco- 
pal and  Presbyterial  offices,  27 ; 
why  found  at  Philippi,  Crete  and 
Asia  Minor  instead  of  Presbyters, 
29f;  first  appearance  of,  as  sepa- 
rate order  claiming  to  be  successors 
of  the  Apostles,  32f;  Bishops  and 
Elders,  quotations  from  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers  showing  their  original 
equality,  45f;  a grade,  not  order 
in  ministry,  125;  originally  or- 
dained by  Presbyters,  145;  those 
of  the  New  Testament  not  officials, 
189;  continuity  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  not  dependent 
upon  them,  242;  originally  re- 
garded as  the  representatives  of  the 
Lord,  not  of  the  Apostles,  339f; 
Bishops  and  Presbyters  constitute 
but  one  order,  399f;  English,  of 
Reformation  period,  their  declara- 
tion as  to  the  human  origin  of 


600 


INDEX. 


Episcopacy,  405f;  the  doctrine, 
no  Church  without  a Bishop,  re- 
futed, 413f;  Abbe  Duchesne,  ad- 
mission of  that  Presbyters  ordained 
Bishops,  455f.  (See  also  “Apos- 
tolic Succession  ” and  “ Episco- 
pate.”) 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  validity  of  the 
ministrations  of  non  - Episcopal 
ministries  proven  by  references  to 
his  official  acts,  227f. 

Book  of  Common  Prayer,  its  justifica- 
tion of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union,  319. 

Briggs,  Prof.,  quotations  and  remarks 
showing  that  the  ordinal  does  not 
justify  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
right  of  Episcopacy,  119;  sup- 
ports Republican  doctrine  of  the 
equality  of  non-Episcopal  with 
Episcopal  ministries,  208;  his  in- 
sistence upon  the  identity  of  Pres- 
byterial  and  Episcopal  Succession, 

465f. 

Bright,  remarks  of,  concerning  the  cele- 
brated case  of  Travers  who, 
though  only  in  Presbyterian  orders, 
exercised  his  Ministry  in  England, 

432f. 

Bruce,  Canon,  declares  Ignatius  knew 
of  no  institution  of  Bishops  by 
Apostles,  405 f. 

Bucer,  regarded  ordination  to  Episco- 
pate as  institution  to  an  office  not 
a creation  of  an  Episcopal  char- 
acter, 120f. 

Burnet,  Anglican  Bishop,  his  testimony 
to  the  effect  that  reordination  was 
not  required  of  the  Continental 
Clergy  by  the  Church  of  England 
previous  to  1 662,  1 70. 

CAMBRIDGE,  it  and  Oxford,  sug- 
gestion of  colonial  missionary  to 
their  authorities  temporarily  met  in 
the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
xxii  f. 

Campbell,  Alexander,  service  of,  in 
emphasizing  the  simplicity  of  the 
primitive  Christian  belief,  294. 


Canons,  evidence  of,  that  the  Episco- 
pate did  not  supplant  the  Presbyt- 
erate  without  a struggle,  32f;  of 
Hippolytus  and  a Republican  Epis- 
copate, 452f. 

Canon  xix,  memorial  against,  creates 
necessity  for  explanation  of  the 
crucial  fourth  article  of  the  Quad- 
rilateral, 166. 

Caste,  theory  of  ministry  could  not  have 
been  held  by  the  New  Testament 
Christians,  121  f;  Imperial  concep- 
tion must  give  place  to  Republican, 

150. 

Cathedral,  St.  John  the  Divine,  New 
York  City,  illustrative  of  author’s 
vision  of  Church  union,  162. 

Catholic,  sense  of  its  use  in  the  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union,  94; 
Anglican  Churches  Protestant,  95; 
leadership  of,  would  be  ruinous  to 
Anglicanism,  106;  their  program 
impossible  and  undesirable,  11  Of; 
triumph  of,  would  be  a misfortune, 

153. 

Challenge,  the  author’s,  84. 

Christ,  the  only  Priest,  158. 

Christianity,  institutions  of,  result  of 
evolutionary  development,  79;  a 
Protestant  movement,  105. 

Christians,  each  generation  of,  free  to 
act  without  slavish  reference  to  its 
predecessors,  81  ; all  belong  to  same 
ministerial  order,  lOOf;  primitive, 
impossibility  of  their  having  held 
the  Sacerdotal  theory  of  the  min- 
istry and  Sacraments,  121. 

Christian  Unity,  conciliatory  course 
necessary  to  its  promotion,  5f;  the 
problem  of,  the  creation  of  an 
inter-Church  ministry  regularity, 
36 1 f ; argument  showing  the  un- 
justifiableness of  division,  382f. 

Church,  may  be,  according  to  doctrine 
of  Tertullian,  constituted  by  three 
laymen,  14f;  Christian  associations 
were  called  Churches  in  New  Tes- 
tament before  possessing  an  apos- 
tolic ministry,  16;  those  of  the 
New  Testament  and  sub-apostolic 


INDEX. 


501 


times  resembled  the  Protestant 
Churches  of  modern  times  as  to 
diversity  of  their  ministries,  yet  all 
were  Churches  in  communion  with 
each  other,  18;  ministry  of,  a 
development  due  to  experience, 
18;  Congregational,  recognized  by 
the  Apostles  as  true  Churches, 
18f;  Presbyterian,  recognized  by 
the  Apostles  as  true  Churches, 
18f;  built  for  the  realization  of 
the  great  Gospel  truth  of  man’s 
personal  relationship  to  God,  24f; 
an  universal  commonwealth,  a 
great  democracy,  24f;  a Demo- 
cratic lay  institution,  28;  proofs 
that  its  organization  was  by  the 
people  on  the  lines  of  familiar 
institutions,  29f;  why  it  did  not 
retain  the  primitive  synagogue  or- 
ganization, 32;  Presbyterians,  Con- 
gregationalists.  Episcopalians  and 
Papalists,  quote  primitive  docu- 
ments in  support  of  their  respective 
governments,  thus  proving  that  orig- 
inally there  was  no  uniform  gov- 
ernment, 35 ; organization  of,  in 
solution  as  late  as  A.  D.  140,  as 
proven  by  Didache,  44 ; reorgani- 
zation of,  admissible  and  neces- 
sary, 80;  living  and  therefore  not 
necessarily  bound  by  precedents, 
81  ; divisions  of,  place  her  behind 
other  institutions  of  modern  civili- 
zation, 91  f;  Protestant  doctrine  as 
to  seed  of,  97f;  three  laymen  may 
found  one,  98;  inherent  in  whole 
people  not  in  ministry  alone,  101  ; 
in  people  not  Bishop,  102;  chief 
objects  of,  107;  no  more  Divine 
than  State  or  Family,  108;  all 
equal  as  all  families  are  equal, 
109;  New  Testament,  were  con- 
gregational, 125;  not  founded  by 
Jesus,  134;  in  New  Testament 
times  of  the  Quaker  type,  1 35 ; 
organizers  of,  not  Jesus  and  the 
Twelve,  but  St.  Paul,  Ignatius, 
Cyprian,  Constantine  and  the 
Popes,  141  ; may  be  reorganized. 


154;  non-Episcopal  Churches,  right 
of,  to  create  their  own  Episco- 
pates, 172;  continuity  of,  not  inter- 
rupted by  the  carrying  out  of  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
176;  proof  of  her  divinity,  178; 
non  - Episcopal  Churches,  under 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
could  create  their  own  Episco- 
pate, 186;  all  Churches  have  the 
Episcopate  in  one  or  another  form, 
190;  Baptist,  has  Episcopate,  190; 
" Catholic,”  origin  of,  207 ; non- 
Episcopal  Churches,  only  way  in 
which  they  can  secure  Bishops, 
210;  reorganization  of,  by  Ignatius, 
Cyprian  and  Constantine,  214;  an- 
cient Churches,  representatives  of, 
should  remember  that  the  modern 
Churches  are  the  brides  to  be  won, 
232;  Protestant  Episcopal,  name 
of,  proves  that  Sacerdotalists  are 
wrong  in  identifying  her  with  the 
Roman  and  Greek  Churches  rather 
than  with  the  Protestant  Church, 
236;  all  Churches  are  sects,  none 
really  Catholic,  238;  “the  Church," 
no  such  Church  in  existence,  238f; 
the  Church  of  the  United  States, 
not  in  existence,  must  be  developed, 
239;  Roman  Church,  a sect,  240; 
Greek  Church,  a sect,  240;  An- 
glican Churches  are  sects,  240; 
superior  claims  of  some  to  alle- 
giance, 240f;  Protestant  Episco- 
pal, her  superior  claim  to  allegiance 
of  Americans,  240 ; continuity  of, 
not  dependent  upon  the  Ministry, 
241  ; continuity  of,  not  dependent 
upon  the  Episcopate,  243  f;  seed  of, 
is  faith,  not  the  Ministry,  243f; 
non-Episcopal,  regularity  of  their 
ministries,  244 ; Anglican  Churches, 
responsible  for  many  overlappings 
of  Episcopal  jurisdictions,  245 ; 
reorganization  of,  both  a possibility 
and  necessity,  248f;  reorganiza- 
tions of,  such  as  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union  provides  for, 
249;  the  Church  of  the  Future, 


502 


INDEX. 


an  evolutionary  reorganization  of 
the  Churches  of  the  present,  251  f; 
cannot  continue  in  its  present  di- 
vided state,  253 ; state  ahead  of 
the  Churches  because  of  their 
abandonment  of  Imperialism,  while 
they  still  hold  to  Sacerdotalism, 
257 ; Corinthian,  its  history  shows 
that  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  the 
Historic  Episcopate  is  based  on  a 
worthless  tradition,  273f;  the  seed 
of,  according  to  Tertullian,  a 
transmitted  Apostolic  faith,  not  a 
transmitted  Apostolic  Ministry, 
284f;  age  of,  does  not  necessarily 
imply  superiority,  315;  divinity  of, 
due  to  the  people,  not  to  its  age 
or  officers,  315;  equal  divineness 
of  all  Churches  that  help  on  to- 
wards an  universal  and  complete 
civilization,  316;  sense  in  which 
living  modern  Churches  are  as  old 
as  the  ancient,  316;  not  founded 
by  the  Lord,  but  nevertheless  nec- 
essary as  an  embodiment  of  His 
spirit,  337;  it  and  State,  the 
family  the  basis  of,  355;  reorgani- 
zation of,  objection  to,  answered, 
374f;  the  doctrine,  no  Church 
without  a Bishop,  refuted,  41 3f; 
commissions  of  the  Lord  given  to 
it  as  a whole,  not  to  the  Apostles 
alone,  428f. 

Church  of  Antioch,  founded  by  lay- 
men, 448f. 

Churcb  of  England,  prefers  the  Epis- 
copal government,  but  does  not 
assert  necessity  of  it,  432f. 

Church  Times,  its  statement  of  the 
Sacerdotal  theory  of  the  Episco- 
pate, 393f. 

Church  Unity,  prayer  for,  viii;  change 
of  attitude  towards,  76;  the  set- 
tled things  of  the  problem,  85 ; 
lines  along  which  the  problems 
must  be  solved,  94;  primitive, 
promoters  of,  144;  author’s  vision 
of,  illustrated  by  a cathedral,  161  ; 
change  in  the  author’s  vision  of, 
162;  various  plans  for  securing  it. 


1 63 ; inter  - Church  Conference 
plan  for,  163;  Roman  plan  for, 
163f;  Anglican  plan  for,  163f; 
not  obtainable  through  a one-sided 
or  reciprocal  reordination,  170; 
center  of,  not  a doctrinal  system 
but  an  institution,  182;  character 
of,  provided  in  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  200;  plans  for, 
must  be  in  line  with  the  govern- 
ment of  the  country,  218;  the 
claim  of  ministerial  superiority  the 
great  obstacle,  225 ; the  problem 
of,  232;  must  begin  with  Prot- 
estantism, 234f;  Roman  plan  for, 
an  impossible  anachronism,  236 ; 
a common  ministry  the  known 
factor  of  the  problem,  238;  ad- 
vantages and  benefits  of,  381  f; 
touching  appeal  of  Missionary  for, 

382f. 

Churches,  Anglican,  Protestant  and 
will  continue  so,  11  Of. 

Churches,  National,  necessary  compre- 
hensiveness of,  79. 

Churchman,  The,  endorses  Republican- 
ism of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union,  469f. 

Civilization,  future  of,  with  Republic- 
anism not  Sacerdotalism,  191. 

Clement,  he  and  Tertullian,  silence  of 
Ignatius  and  Polycarp  offsets  their 
testimony  respecting  the  Johannean 
origin  of  the  monarchial  Episco- 
pate, 38f. 

Clergy,  evidence  of  the  decline  of 
Sectarianism  among  them,  381  f. 

Clergy  and  Laity,  no  essential  differ- 
ence between  them  as  shown  by 
Prof.  Hatch,  155. 

Clerical  associations,  a method  for  in- 
augurating and  carrying  out  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union 
through  them,  220f. 

Colleges  of  Bishops,  origin  of,  I44f. 

Commission,  that  of  the  Father  to  Jesus 
and  of  Him  to  the  Apostles,  based 
on  love,  not  authority,  138;  the 
great,  “ Go  ye  into  all  the  world,” 
given  to  the  500,  not  to  the  Apos- 


INDEX. 


503 


ties  alone,  429f;  that  to  teach  and 
baptize  given  to  laymen,  448f. 

Common  Inter-Church  Ministry,  impos- 
sibility of  securing  it  on  Sacerdotal 
basis,  208. 

Communion,  Holy,  the  benefit  of,  not 
an  infusion  of  life,  but  the  de- 
velopment of  it,  by  sustaining  the 
relationship  established  by  baptism, 

362f. 

Confederation,  an  essential  part  of  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union,  182. 

Confession,  the  author’s,  xv. 

Congregational,  New  Testament 
Churches  were,  125. 

Congregational  Churches,  their  doctrine 
of  the  ministry,  xii;  recognized  as 
true  Churches  by  the  Apostles,  18f. 

Constantine,  his  plan  for  Church  union 
in  alignment  with  the  Level  Plan, 
211. 

Continuity,  carrying  out  of  the  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union  involves 
no  interruption  of,  176;  ecclesias- 
tical, not  dependent  upon  the 
Episcopate,  243f. 

Convention,  General,  1910  session  of, 
called  upon  to  explain  fourth  ar- 
ticle of  Quadrilateral,  166. 

Corinthian  Church,  history  of,  illustra- 
tive of  the  worthlessness  of  the 
tradition  upon  which  the  Sacer- 
dotal doctrine  of  the  Historic  Epis- 
copate is  based,  273f;  without  the 
poorly  lighted  tunnel  which  has 
been  so  convenient  a refuge  of 
Sacerdotal  controversialists,  274. 

Cosin,  remarks  of,  concerning  the  cele- 
brated case  of  Travers  who,  though 
only  in  Presbyterian  Orders,  exer- 
cised his  ministry  in  England,  432f. 

Council,  Inter-Church  National,  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  172;  Inter-Church 
National,  constituency  of,  172; 
Inter-Church,  property  holding  in- 
corporation, 172f;  Inter-Church 
National,  not  the  “Historic  ’ Epis- 
copate, the  core  of  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union,  I75f;  national. 


a pre-requisite  institution  of  union, 
182;  a common  feature  to  the  Ig- 
natian,  Cyprianic,  Constantinian, 
and  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union,  213;  national,  Inter-Church, 
necessity  of  and  precedent  for  ad- 
mitting different  types  of  the  Epis- 
copate to  it,  216. 

Covenant,  Bishop  Gore,  and  Dr.  Stone 
do  not  include  within  it  members 
of  the  Churches  which  are  without 
the  Historic  Episcopate,  452f. 

Cranmer,  Archb.,  doctrine  of  the  Epis- 
copate, 113;  regarded  ordination 
to  the  Episcopate  as  institution  to 
office  not  a creation  of  an  epis- 
copal character,  120f;  uses  the 
word  order  as  synonym  of  degree 
or  office,  41  7f. 

Creed,  primitive  simplicity,  294;  Apos- 
tles’ quotation  from  Dean  Sabatier 
showing  worthlessness  of  the  tra- 
dition upon  which  it  is  founded, 

306f. 

Crete,  why  Bishops  are  found  here  in- 
stead of  Presbyters,  29f. 

Critics,  historical,  entitled  to  recognition 
as  reformers,  82;  historical,  our  in- 
debtedness to  them,  264f;  histor- 
ical, quotations  in  justification  of  the 
basis  upon  which  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union  is  rested  from: 
(1)  author  of  the  Apostolic  Age 
in  the  Ten  Epochs  of  Church 
History;  (2)  Mosheim,  Prof.; 
(3)  Ramsay,  Prof.;  (4)  Light- 
foot,  Bp.;  (5)  Wernle,  Prof.; 
(6)  Harnack,  Prof.;  (7)  Hatch, 
Prof.,  320. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  validity  of  the  min- 
istrations of  non-Episcopal  minis- 
tries proven  by  references  to  his 
official  acts,  227f. 

Cyprian,  St.,  his  plan  for  Church 
Union  in  alignment  with  the  Level 
Plan,  211;  his  declaration,  no 
Church  without  a Bishop,  refuted, 

413f. 


504 


INDEX. 


AVIS,  Jefferson,  validity  of  the 
ministrations  of  non  - Episcopal 
ministries  proven  by  references  to 
his  official  acts,  221  i. 

Deacons,  they  and  Bishops,  appointed 
to  their  offices  by  the  people,  12f; 
election  of,  shows  that  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Church  was  left 
to  the  people,  26f. 

DeLaune,  remarks  of,  concerning  the 
celebrated  case  of  Travers  who, 
though  only  in  Presbyterian  orders, 
exercised  his  ministry  in  England, 

432f. 

Denominational  Churches  cannot  in  all 
cases  be  charged  with  schism,  471  f. 

Denominationalism,  temporary  continu- 
ation of,  under  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  1 72f. 

Denominationalism  and  Romanism, 
neither  can  give  the  unity  required, 

252. 

Devolution,  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  a 
devoluted  ministry  an  anachronism, 
88. 

Diaconal  and  Presbyterial,  officialism 
of,  a development  after  Episcopal 
officialism,  145f. 

Didache,  quotation  from,  regarding  the 
appointment  of  Bishops  and  Dea- 
cons by  the  people,  12f;  shows 
that  as  late  as  A.  D.  140  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Church  was  in 
solution,  44;  contemplates  the  elec- 
tion and  appointment  of  ministers 
by  the  people,  445f. 

Diocesan  Episcopate,  a synonym  of  the 
Historic  Episcopate,  214. 

Diocese,  not  a primitive  Christian  in- 
stitution, 32;  in  people,  not  in 
Bishop,  102. 

Disciple,  Presbyterian,  Methodist  and 
Baptist  Churches,  possibility  of 
their  uniting,  377. 

Divine  right,  not  a prerogative  of  the 
Episcopate,  1 1 9. 

Division,  conciliatory  course  necessary 
to  its  healing,  5f. 

Doane,  Bishop,  against  unity  by  ab- 
sorption, 89;  interpretation  of  the 


Preface  to  the  Ordinal  respecting 
the  necessity  of  ordination  by 
Bishops,  240f. 

Dogs  and  horses,  why  they  cannot,  like 
men,  create  divine  institutions,  31 3f. 
Duchesne,  Abbe,  his  notable  admission 
that  Bishops  were  originally  or- 
dained by  Presbyters,  455f. 

Education,  advantages  to,  of 

Church  union,  1 79f . 

Elders,  they  and  Bishops,  quotations 
from  the  Apostolic  Fathers  show- 
ing their  original  equality,  45f;  a 
grade,  not  order  in  ministry,  125; 
originally  laymen,  126;  the  asser- 
tion of  Bishop  Gore  and  Dr.  Stone 
that  the  New  Testament  elders 
constituted  a plural  Episcopate  with 
power  to  perpetuate  the  Apostolate 
by  ordination,  refuted,  454f. 
Elders  - Bishops,  hyphenated  because 
they  are  different  names  for  the 
same  Ministry,  130. 

English  Reformers,  object  of,  in  contin- 
uing the  Episcopate,  practical,  not 
doctrinal,  1 1 8. 

English  speaking  people,  comparative 
gain  of,  193. 

Episcopacy,  Congregationalists,  Presby- 
terians, Episcopalians  and  Papal- 
ists,  quote  primitive  documents  in 
support  of  their  respective  govern- 
ments, thus  proving  that  there  was 
no  uniform  government  in  the 
early  Church,  35 ; its  service  to 
humanity  and  civilization,  53 ; its 
abandonment  not  originally  con- 
templated by  the  Continental  Re- 
formers, 58f;  difference  of  views 
among  English  Reformers  concern- 
ing its  origin  and  authority,  60f; 
necessity  of,  to  Church  unity,  but 
a new  Episcopate  would  answer 
as  well  as  an  old,  90f;  essential 
principles  of  which  it  is  the  em- 
bodiment, 91  ; importance  of,  due 
to  natural  causes,  not  to  super- 
natural origin,  92;  theory  of  Ro- 
man theologians,  112;  came  into 


INDEX. 


505 


being  as  the  result  of  an  evolu- 
tionary process,  113;  Providential 
development  of,  174;  necessity  of, 
to  Church  union,  175;  evolutionary 
theory  of  its  origin  increases  rather 
than  decreases  estimation  of,  203f; 
St.  Peter  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  founding  of  it,  298;  St.  John’s 
part  in  the  founding  of  it,  301  ; 
historic,  no  guarantee  against  di- 
vision or  heresy,  313;  divine  right 
of,  a Roman  doctrine,  413f;  Dr. 
Fulton’s  assertion  that  it  is  an 
Apostolic  institution,  refuted,  41 7f. 

Episcopal  and  Presbyterial  succession 
identically  the  same,  465f. 

Episcopal  Colleges,  origin  of,  144f. 

Episcopal  officialism,  the  development 
of,  before  Presbyterial  and  Dia- 
conal  officialism,  145f. 

Episcopal  jurisdictions,  overlapping  of, 
245 ; limitation  of,  to  souls,  not  by 
geographical  boundary  lines,  245f; 
limitation  of,  by  geographical 
boundaries  fictitious,  246;  over- 
lapping of,  by  Apostles,  if  they 
were  Bishops,  247 ; overlapping  of 
at  Rome,  if  St.  Paul  and  St. 
Peter  were  Bishops  and  were  there 
together,  247 ; limitation  of,  by 
geographical  boundaries  a fetish, 

247. 

Episcopalianism  and  Presbyterianism, 
Sacerdotalism  of,  points  of  agree- 
ment, 97. 

Episcopate,  originally  the  bond  of 
unity,  why  not  now?  4;  theories 
of  its  origin,  4;  its  mission  and 
failure,  4;  investigation  of,  the  ob- 
ject of  the  League  of  Catholic 
unity,  5;  may  it  not  be  em  ecclesi- 
astical rather  than  an  apostolical 
institution  and  yet  be  regarded  as 
having  a Divine  character?  6f;  no 
historical  evidence  in  support  of 
the  tradition  that  St.  John  founded 
it,  8;  origin  and  development  of, 
8f;  causes  of  the  difficulty  of  ar- 
riving at  unbiased  conclusions  re- 
specting its  origin  and  authority,  8f ; 


its  relation  to  unity,  8f ; course  to  be 
pursued  on  the  Republican  theory 
that  it  is  etn  ecclesiastical  rather 
than  an  apostolic  institution,  10; 
ceune  into  existence  as  the  result 
of  a natural  development,  I2f;  no 
more  than  germ  of  found  in  New 
Testament,  I7f;  should  it  be  de- 
nominationalized  and  how?  20f; 
how  it  came  to  supplant  the  Pres- 
byterate,  28f;  an  inquiry  into  its 
origin  and  relationship  to  the 
Apostolate,  29f;  canons  of  early 
Church  prove  that  it  did  not  sup- 
plant the  Presbyterate  without  a 
struggle,  32f;  silence  of  Ignatius 
and  Polycarp  concerning  the 
Johannean  origin  of,  offsets  the  tes- 
timony of  Clement  and  Tertullian, 
35,  38f;  theory  of  its  Divine  right 
has  for  its  historical  basis  a per- 
haps, 38f;  evidence  of,  reluctance 
to  accept  it,  42f;  doctrine  that 
the  monarchial  Episcopate  was  of 
apostolic  constitution  not  gener- 
ally accepted  until  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century,  45 ; if  St. 
John  had  anything  to  do  with  its 
establishment,  it  was  only  to  give 
it  apostolic  recognition  and  bless- 
ing after  it  had  naturally  grown  up, 
50f;  representatives  of,  not  origi- 
nally ordained,  but  simply  elected, 
51  f;  originally  extended  through 
the  Churches  by  a plan  resembling 
the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
51  f;  two  views  of,  66;  not  held 
by  English  reformers  to  be  neces- 
sary to  a regular  ministry  and 
valid  Sacraments,  11  If;  not  ac- 
cording to  English  reformers  a 
distinct  order  in  the  Ministry,  112; 
principles  of  which  it  is  the  em- 
bodiment, 116;  several  embodi- 
ments of  Episcopal  principles, 
116;  all  embodiments  of  Episco- 
pal principles  both  Divine  and 
human,  1 1 6f ; the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  new  embodiment 
of  the  Episcopal  principles,  117; 


506 


INDEX, 


Sacerdotal  theory  of  fictitious,  1 1 7f ; 
Anglican  Ordinal  makes  no  pro- 
vision for  a Sacerdotal  succession, 
and  accordingly,  if  there  is  any 
such  thing,  it  has  lapsed  in  our 
Churches,  120f;  first  representa- 
tives of,  were  laymen,  124;  im- 
portance of,  due  to  development 
not  devolution,  142;  originally 
strictly  congregational,  144;  rep- 
resentatives of  not  originally  or- 
dained by  Bishops,  145;  “ His- 
toric,” three  plans  by  which  it 
might  be  locally  adapted,  167; 
necessity  of  a new  Level  Plan 
for  securing  it,  174;  Inter-Church, 
that  of  each  Church  autonomous, 
177;  “ Historic,”  not  a sectarian 
asset,  187;  Interdenominational, 
provided  for  in  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union,  inevitably  Re- 
publican, 197;  cause  of  its  Di- 
vinity, 201  ; different  kinds  of, 
205;  its  essential  characteristics, 
209;  Congregational,  originally 
ordained  by  Elders,  215;  ecclesi- 
astical continuity  not  dependent 
upon  it,  243f;  “ Historic,”  Sacer- 
dotal doctrine  of,  based  on  a 
worthless  tradition,  273  f;  in  what 
sense  and  to  what  degree  St.  John 
may  be  said  to  have  had  anything 
to  do  with  the  establishment  of  it, 
300;  Bishop  Hall’s  admission  that 
the  transmission  of  ministerial  au- 
thority is  not  limited  to  the  Epis- 
copate, 317;  Bishop  Hall’s  forced 
admission  that  the  difference  be- 
tween Episcopal  and  non-Episco- 
pal  ordination  is  a matter  of 
changeable  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
not  a matter  of  unchanging  faith, 
318;  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession not  known  to  the  primi- 
tive Church  nor  fully  accepted  un- 
til the  fifth  century,  339f;  ques- 
tion as  to  function  of,  constitutes 
crux  of  Church  union  problem, 
393  f;  possesses  no  exclusive  dif- 
ferentiating function,  393f;  con- 


troversy as  to  whether  its  use  in 
Quadrilateral  included  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession,  396f;  decla- 
ration of  English  Reformation 
Bishops  to  the  effect  that  it  is 
of  human  origin,  405f;  St.  Je- 
rome’s account  of  its  origin  irrec- 
oncilable with  the  theory  of 
Apostolic  Succession,  405f;  ordi- 
nation not  an  exclusive  preroga- 
tive of,  4I2f;  origin  assigned  in 
report  of  committee  on  Quad- 
rilateral overture  not  supported  by 
history,  423f;  commission  given  by 
the  Lord  to  the  Church  as  a 
whole  and  not  to  the  Apostles 
alone,  428f;  not  a distinct  order 
before  the  fourth  century,  437f; 
the  bene  esse  not  the  esse  of  the 
Church,  439f;  canons  of  Hip- 
polytus  and  a Republican  Episco- 
pate, 452f;  Bishop  Gore  and  Dr. 
Stone  do  not  include  within  the 
covenant  members  of  the  Churches 
which  are  without  the  “ Historic 
Episcopate,  452f;  the  assertion  of 
Bishop  Gore  and  Dr.  Stone  that 
the  New  Testament  elders  consti- 
tuted a plural  Episcopate  with 
power  to  perpetuate  the  Apostolate 
by  ordination,  refuted,  454f;  ad- 
mission of  Abbe  Duchesne  that 
Presbyters  ordained,  455f.  (See 
also,  ” Apostolic  Succession,”  and 
“ Bishop.”) 

Erasmus,  quotations  from,  showing  that 
it  was  not  originally  the  intention 
of  the  Continental  reformers  to 
abandon  Episcopacy,  58f. 

Evangelists,  a grade,  not  order  in  min- 
istry, 125. 

Evolution,  all  institutions  products  of, 

204. 

Ewing,  the  Rev.  Quincy,  quotation  from 
regarding  the  supernaturalness  of 
sacramental  ordinances,  354. 

Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  founders  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood,  129. 


INDEX. 


5or 


Family,  social  unit  from  which 
State  and  Church  sprang,  1 08 ; 
Republican  not  Imperial  or  Sacer- 
dotal, 109;  every  family  should 
be  a church  and  its  head  a priest, 
229;  the  basis  of  State  and 
Church,  355. 

Farnell,  the  anthropologist,  on  the 
heathen  origin  of  the  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession,  128. 
Federation,  the  only  possible  Church 
union,  88f. 

Field,  Dean,  his  claim  that  ordination 
has  been  reserved  as  the  exclusive 
right  of  Bishops,  refuted,  419f. 
Fig  Tree,  that  cursed  by  the  Lord  rep- 
resents Sacerdotalism,  311. 

Fulton,  Dr.,  assertion  that  Episcopacy 
is  of  Apostolic  origin,  refuted, 

417f. 

GAYFORD.  asserts  that  the  first 
ministry  was  voluntary,  442f. 
Geikie,  asserts  that  the  commissions  of 
the  Lord  were  given  to  the  Church 
as  a whole,  not  to  the  Apostles 
alone,  429f. 

Gibraltar,  Prof.,  Hatch’s  great  work 
against  Sacerdotalism  compared  to, 

154f. 

God,  moral  conception  of,  against  Sac- 
erdotalism, 137. 

Gore,  Bishop,  books  of,  on  Church, 
Ministry  and  Unity  covered  by 
the  Appendix,  83;  his  untenable 
theory  as  to  Elders  being  Bish- 
ops, 149;  and  Moberly,  great 
champions  of  Sacerdotalism,  263 f; 
and  Moberly,  their  works  sum- 
marized and  interpreted,  268f; 
and  Moberly,  grudgingly  admit 
validity  of  lay  Baptism,  270;  and 
Moberly,  points  of  agreement  be- 
tween them  and  the  author,  271  ; 
and  Moberly,  acknowledge  the  uni- 
versality of  the  Priesthood,  271f; 
quotation  from,  by  Bishop  Hall, 
answered,  290f ; and  Moberly, 
failure  of,  to  establish  the  doc- 
trine of  Apostolic  Succession, 


399f;  statement  against  the  evolu- 
tionary theory  of  the  Ministry 
answered,  426f;  his  mistake  in 
considering  original  Apostles  as  the 
exclusive  source  of  ministerial 
power,  430f;  remarks  of,  concern- 
ing the  celebrated  case  of  Travers 
who,  though  in  Presbyterian  orders, 
exercised  his  ministry  in  England, 
432f;  and  Dr.  Stone,  put  mem- 
bers of  the  Churches  not  having 
the  Historic  Episcopate,  without 
the  covenant,  452f;  and  Dr.  Stone, 
their  assertion  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment elders  constituted  a plural 
Episcopate  with  power  to  perpetu- 
ate the  Apostolate  by  ordination, 
refuted,  454f. 

Gospel,  Sacerdotalism  not  found  there- 
in, 95f;  its  religion,  a layman’s 
movement,  1 50. 

Gospel  Republicanism,  the  basis  of 
Christian  unity,  82. 

Governors  and  Presidents,  as  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  American  people  is 
not  dependent  upon  them  so  the 
continuity  of  the  Church  is  not 
dependent  upon  Bishops,  242. 

Greer,  Bishop,  of  New  York,  his  ex- 
perience showing  the  impossible 
character  of  the  Sacerdotal  pro- 
gram for  Church  union,  168. 

Guardian,  The,  quotation  from,  against 
Bishop  Perowne,  432f. 

Gwatkin,  Prof.,  supports  Republican 
doctrine  of  the  equality  of  non- 
Episcopal  with  Episcopal  minis- 
tries, 208;  quotation  from,  respect- 
ing the  equivalence  of  the  Episco- 
pal and  Presbyterial  offices,  404f; 
declares  Ignatius  knew  of  no  insti- 
tution of  Bishops  by  Apostles, 
405f;  the  Apostolate  not  originally 
the  exclusive  source  of  ministerial 
authority,  430f;  Gwatkin  and 
Lightfoot,  regard  the  Christian 
ministry  as  springing  from  the 
Church,  442f;  his  assertion  to  the 
effect  that  the  Apostles  were  lead- 
ers, not  rulers,  owing  their  place 


508 


INDEX. 


•and  influence  fo  deference,  not  fo 
the  appointment  and  authority  of 

Christ,  448f. 

U ALL,  Bishop,  his  “ The  Apostolic 

^ ^ Ministry  ” answered  in  Appen- 
dix, xxii;  on  the  relative  magni- 
tude of  the  Sacraments,  229;  reply 
to  his  charge,  “ The  Apostolic 
Ministry,”  281  ; points  covered  in 
the  author’s  reply  to  his  charge 
on  the  Apostolic  Ministry,  282; 
his  quotation  from  Tertullian  in 
support  of  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  Succession,  shown  to 
be  wholly  inapplicable,  282f;  his 
mistake  in  use  made  of  quotation 
from  Tertullian  due  to  the  erro- 
neous supposition  that  the  seed  of 
the  Church  is  a transmitted  min- 
istry instead  of  a transmitted  faith, 
284f;  his  objection  to  Tertul- 
lian s testimony  as  to  the  validity 
of  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Com- 
munion when  administered  by 
laymen  will  not  stand,  288 ; his 
quotation  from  Bishop  Gore  an- 
swered, 290f;  his  use  of  Ter- 
tullian’s  testimony  to  Apostolic 
Succession  shown  to  be  due  to  a 
misconception,  298 ; conclusions 
reached  in  his  charge,  312;  inter- 
pretation of  his  statement  respect- 
ing Church  principles,  313f;  wrong 
in  admitting  that  the  ministry  is 
not  a caste  while  insisting  that  min- 
isterial character  is  given  at  ordi- 
nation, 317;  his  wrong  use  of  St. 
Paul’s  comparison  of  the  Church 
with  the  human  body,  317;  his 
forced  admission  that  the  transmis- 
sion of  ministerial  authority  is  not 
limited  to  the  Episcopate,  317; 
possibility  of  carrying  out  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  on 
the  basis  of  his  admission  respect- 
ing the  transmission  of  ministerial 
authority  without  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion, 317f;  his  admission  that  the 
difference  between  Episcopal  and  • 


non-Episcopal  ordination  is  a mat- 
ter of  changeable  ecclesiastical  dis- 
cipline, not  a matter  of  unchanging 
faith,  318;  agreement  of,  with  the 
author,  319;  agreement  of,  with  the 
author  in  identifying  the  benefit 
of  the  sacramental  ordinances  with 
prayer,  351. 

Hammond,  asserts  that  the  commissions 
of  the  Lord  were  given  to  the 
Church  as  a whole,  not  to  the 
Apostles  alone,  429f. 

Harnack,  Prof.,  identifies  Anglicans 
with  Protestantism  not  Catholi- 
cism, 95;  his  interest  in  and  en- 
dorsement of  Prof.  Hatch’s  Or- 
ganization of  the  Early  Christian 
churches,  1 54f ; supports  Repub- 
lican doctrine  of  the  equality  of 
non-Episcopal  with  Episcopal  min- 
istries, 208;  quotation  from,  in 
justification  of  the  Basis  upon 
which  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  is  rested,  337f. 

Hatch,  Prof.,  quoted  in  support  of  the 
position  taken  by  the  author,  1 54f ; 
supports  Republican  doctrine  of 
the  equality  of  non-Episcopal  with 
Episcopal  ministries,  208;  quota- 
tion from,  in  justification  of  the 
basis  upon  which  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union  is  rested,  338f; 
his  claim  that  ordination  has  been 
reserved  as  the  exclusive  right  of 
Bishops,  refuted,  41 9f. 

Hilary,  testimony  of  as  to  lay  minis- 
try, 442f. 

Hippolytus,  canons  of,  show  that  no  es- 
sential distinction  existed  between 
Elders  and  Bishops,  420f;  canons 
of  and  a Republican  Episcopate, 

452f. 

Historical  Criticism,  science  of,  has 
supplanted  ecclesiastical  tradition, 
93  f;  an  established  science,  291. 

Historical  Critics,  entitled  to  recogni- 
tion as  Reformers,  82 ; our  in- 
debtedness to  them,  264f;  com- 
pared with  the  Reformers,  265. 

” Historic  ” Episcopate,  necessity  for 


INDEX. 


509 


defining  its  meaning,  165f;  three 
plans  by  which  it  might  be  locally 
adapted,  167;  no  essential  rela- 
tionship to  the  Level  Plan,  173f; 
local  adaptation  of,  provided  for  in 
the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
195;  not  the  basis  of  the  Igna- 
tian  and  Cyprianic  plans  for 
Church  Union,  2l3f;  basis  of 
Constantine  s plan  for  Church 
union,  but  not  of  the  plans  of 
Cyprian  and  Ignatius,  214;  a syn- 
onym of  Diocesan  Episcopate,  214. 

Historicity,  not  conveyed  by  ordination, 
186. 

History  and  Tradition,  relative  value 

of,  296. 

Holy  Communion,  Tertullian’s  testi- 
mony as  to  its  administrations  by 
laymen,  I4f;  validity  of,  when 
administered  by  a layman,  98f; 
originally  a simple  ceremony  often 
celebrated  by  laymen,  228f;  why 
an  Episcopalian  might  receive  it 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  229f; 
Sacerdotal  view  of  the  celebration 
of  it  by  ministers  who  have  not  re- 
ceived ordination  by  Bishops  of 
the  Apostolic  Succession,  270f; 
and  Baptism,  not  originally  cele- 
brated as  Sacerdotal  Sacraments, 
336f;  effects  of,  supernatural,  but 
not  unnaturally  so,  348f;  resem- 
blance of  the  table  of  our  Heav- 
enly Friend  to  the  table  of  an 
earthly  friend,  363f;  the  commun- 
ion of  the  table  of  our  Heavenly 
Friend  essentially  the  same  as  the 
communion  of  the  table  of  an 
earthly  friend,  363f;  the  error  of 
Sacerdotalists  respecting  its  bene- 
fits, 365;  administered  by  laymen, 
448f. 

Holy  Ghost,  He,  not  Priests,  the  rep- 
resentative of  God  to  His  people, 
99  f;  He,  not  the  Twelve,  the 
source  of  ministerial  authority  in 
New  Testament  times,  129f;  the 
early  ministry  called  by  Him,  not 
ordained  by  the  Apostles,  277. 


Hooker,  doctrine  of  the  Episcopate, 
113;  quotation  from,  in  support  of 
Republican  theory  of  Church  and 
Ministry,  114;  argument  of  in  sup- 
port of  Episcopacy,  utilitarian  not 
Sacerdotal,  115;  admits  that  a 
Ministry  might  be  created  by  lay- 
men, 440f. 

Horses  and  Dogs,  why  they  cannot  like 
men  create  divine  institutions,  3l5f. 

Hort,  showing  to  the  effect  that  Barna- 
bas, Ananias  and  the  Antiochian 
elders  were  laymen,  148f;  he, 
Lightfoot  and  McGiffert  agree  that 
the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  Apos- 
tolic Succession  is  without  histor- 
ical foundation,  280. 

Huntington,  the  Rev.  Dr.  W.  R.,  or- 
ganizer of  the  League  of  Catholic 
Unity,  4f;  cause  of  opposition  to 
his  proposed  Preamble  to  the  Con- 
stitution, 270. 

I CE,  whether  produced  by  artificial 

* or  natural  processes  being  real  ice, 
used  in  illustration  of  the  equality 
of  ancient  and  modern  minis- 
tries, 314. 

Ignatian,  Cyprianic  and  Constantinian 
precedents,  importance  of  regard- 
ing them  in  efforts  to  secure 
Church  union,  216f. 

Ignatius,  he  and  Polycarp,  their  silence 
respecting  the  Johannean  origin  of 
the  monarchial  Episcopate  offsets 
that  of  Tertullian  and  Clement, 
35f;  according  to  tradition,  made 
a monarchial  Bishop  by  St.  John, 
41  ; the  first  to  mention  the  orders 
of  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons 
in  the  Christian  ministry,  41  f;  held 
Presbyters  to  be  successors  to 
Apostles,  132;  his  Church  union 
motto,  212;  silence  of,  respecting 
the  origin  of  Polycarp's  Episcopal 
office  proves  that  he  knew  of  no 
institution  of  Bishops  by  Apos- 
tles, 405f;  meaning  of  his  declara- 
tion respecting  the  necessity  of  a 
Bishop  to  a Church,  451  f. 


510 


INDEX. 


Imperialism,  principle  of,  same  as  that 
of  Sacerdotalism,  88;  and  Priest- 
ism,  involve  the  same  non-Gospel 
principle,  208f. 

Incarnation,  doctrine  of,  contrary  to 
Sacerdotalism,  1 46. 

Innocent  III.,  power  of,  124. 

Institution,  office  of,  does  teach  official 
but  not  ministerial  Sacerdotalism, 

94f. 

Inter-Church  Episcopate  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  clear  statement  of, 
under  three  heads,  191. 

Inter-Church  Conference,  its  plan  for 
the  union  of  the  Churches,  163. 

Inter-Church  National  Council,  neces- 
sity of,  and  precedent  for,  admit- 
ting different  types  of  the  Episco- 
pate to  it,  216. 

Inter-Church  Ordaining  Committee,  im- 
portant part  of  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union,  185. 

Introduction  and  Appendix,  excellency 
of  that  of  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  xix ; value  of, 
from  view  of  modern  scholarship, 

83. 

Irenaeus,  testimony  of,  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  Apostolic  Succession  being 
a transmission  of  faith,  287. 

Israel,  people  of,  their  historical  con- 
tinuity not  dependent  upon  their 
Priesthood,  242. 

JAMES,  St.,  did  not  expect  Chris- 
tianity to  separate  from  Judaism, 
122. 

Jerome,  St.,  testimony  to  the  elevation 
of  the  monarchial  Episcopate  from 
the  oligarchal  Presbyterate,  339; 
quotation  from  against  the  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  Succession,  405  f. 
Jesus,  Church  not  founded  by  Him, 
133;  Sacraments  not  instituted  by 
Him,  133;  sense  in  which  He  was 
Founder  of  a Church,  134;  could 
not  have  instituted  official  succes- 
sors, 1 37 ; could  not  have  created 
a Sacerdotal  Ministry,  I37f; 
Church  not  organized  by  Him, 


141;  His  relationship  to  individ- 
ual Christians  and  right  doers 
rather  than  to  organic  Christianity, 
142;  He  was  a Layman  eind  this 
fact  cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted 
upon,  149f;  the  great  Republican, 
217;  He  zmd  His  Apostles,  Lay- 
men, 294. 

Jewish  Priesthood,  that  of  New  Testa- 
ment times,  owed  its  existence  to 
Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  not  to  Moses 
and  Aaron,  129. 

John,  St.,  attempt  to  trace  the  Angli- 
can Episcopal  succession  to  him, 
xii;  tradition  respecting  his  found- 
ing the  Episcopate,  8 ; when  he 
is  said  to  have  established  the 
Episcopate,  what  is  meant  is  that 
he  recognized  an  institution  that 
had  grown  up  naturally,  50f;  did 
not  expect  Christianity  to  separate 
from  Judaism,  122;  in  what  sense, 
and  to  what  degree  he  may  be  said 
to  have  had  anything  to  do  with 
the  establishment  of  Episcopacy, 
300 ; tradition  respecting  his  found- 
ing of  the  monarchial  Episcopate, 
301  ; tradition  upon  which  the 
doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession 
is  based,  405f. 

Judaism,  an  ethical  not  Sacerdotal  re- 
ligion, 105. 

1^  EBLE,  remarks  of,  concerning  the 
celebrated  case  of  Travers  who, 
though  only  in  Presbyterian  orders, 
exercised  his  ministry  in  England, 

432f. 

King,  Lord,  his  assertion  that  there  are 
only  two  orders  in  the  Christian 
ministry,  41  If. 

Kings,  continuity  of  nation,  not  depend- 
ent upon,  242. 

Knowles,  Canon,  quotation  from  his 
pamphlet,  " Church  Unity,"  illus- 
trative of  the  extremes  to  which 
some  of  the  Anglican  " Catholics  ” 
go  in  their  Sacerdotalism,  369. 


INDEX. 


511 


I AYMEN,  many  Churches  founded 

^ by,  II;  the  Gospel  preached  by, 
II;  no  essential  difference  be- 
tween, 99;  New  Testament  min- 
isters were  such,  132;  the  hope 
of  the  future,  150;  Tertullian’s 
testimony  of  the  validity  of  Bap- 
tism and  Holy  Communion  when 
administered  by  a representative 
of  the  Lay  Priesthood,  287 ; an 
evidence  of  the  decline  of  Sec- 
tarianism, 380f;  decline  of  Sec- 
tarianism among  them,  380;  time 
was  in  the  history  of  Christianity 
when  there  were  no  Clergy  and 
such  a time  may  come  again,  427f ; 
the  live  hundred,  to  whom  the  great 
commission  of  the  Lord  was  given 
were  not  official  ministers,  429f; 
can  they  create  a Ministry?  440f; 
Holy  Communion  administered  by, 
448f ; a quotation  from  Bishop 
Lightfoot  touching  lay  ministra- 
tions, 450f;  laymen’s  movement, 
a fulfillment  of  Bishop  Lightfoot’s 
prophecy,  469f . 

Laity  and  Clergy,  Hatch’s  showing 
against  Sacerdotalism,  155. 

Laud,  Archbishop,  first  Anglican  to 
maintain  in  the  necessity  of  Epis- 
copacy to  existence  of  a Church, 
1 12f ; his  theory  of  the  Episcopate, 
115;  tendency  of  his  leadership, 
ll8f;  reproval  of,  for  asserting 
that  there  could  be  no  Church 
without  a Bishop,  413f. 

Lay  Baptism,  validity  of  grudgingly 
admitted  by  Bishop  Gore  and 
Prof.  Moberly,  270. 

Leadership,  first  ministers  leaders  not 
officers,  125;  superiority  of,  to  offi- 
cialism, 127. 

League  of  Catholic  Unity,  its  organizer, 
constitution,  object  and  lapse,  4f. 

Level  Plan  for  Church  Union,  two 
theories  upon  which  the  plan  pro- 
ceeds, xviii;  ground  covered  in 
the  book,  xviii  f;  excellency  of 
its  Introduction  and  Appendix, 
xix;  the  fundamental  contention 


which  is  the  basis  of  the  plan, 
xix  f;  suggested  order  for  reading 
the  book,  xx;  should  the  Historic 
Episcopate  be  denominationalized 
in  accordance  with  its  provisions? 
20f;  the  election  or  appointment 
of  Matthias  by  the  people  to  meet 
a special  need  shows  that  the 
Church  is  free  to  adopt  this  plan, 
23 ; sense  in  which  the  author  uses 
the  term  “Catholic,”  94;  his 
theory  of  the  Episcopate,  1 1 5f ; 
statement  of  the  plan,  167;  the 
“square  deal’’  plan,  173;  the 
plan  contemplates  no  organic  re- 
lationship between  Episcopal  and 
other  Protestant  Churches,  175;  not 
a scheme  for  sectarian  aggrandize- 
ment, 176;  it  involves  reorganiza- 
tion, but  not  interruption  of  con- 
tinuity, 176;  does  not  open  the 
door  to  Sacerdotalism,  180;  the 
plan  begins  at  the  top  not  bottom, 
I80f;  basis  of  the  plan,  185;  clear 
statement  of  the  plan  under  three 
heads,  191  ; method  of  carrying  it 
out,  195;  an  important  part  of  the 
plan,  196;  interdenominational 
Episcopate  provided  for  in  the 
plan,  inevitably  Republican,  197; 
why  the  plan  should  be  satisfactory 
to  both  Sacerdotalists  and  Protes- 
tants, I99f;  its  provision  for  the 
recognition  of  all  forms  of  the 
Episcopate,  206;  adoption  of  the 
plan  involves  no  sacrifice  of  prin- 
ciple, 206f;  its  two- fold  problem, 
209;  alignment  of  this  plan  with 
three  primitive  plans,  Ignatian, 
Cyprianic  and  Constantinian,  211; 
its  council  a common  feature  with 
those  plans  for  Church  Union, 
213;  identity  of  the  plan  with  the 
plans  of  Cyprian  and  Ignatius,2l6; 
an  alternative  method  for  inaugu- 
rating and  carrying  out  the  plan, 
220;  objections  to  the  plan,  232; 
its  provision  for  a common  unify- 
ing Ministry,  237f;  its  provision 
for  development  of  all  comprehen- 


512 


INDEX. 


sive  national  Churches,  249;  the 
provision  of  the  plan  for  the  re- 
quired evolutionary  development 
which  will  give  to  Christendom 
and  the  world  the  necessary  Chris- 
tian unity,  253 ; Bishop  Hall’s 
criticism  of  the  plan,  313;  possibil- 
ity of  carrying  it  out  on  the  basis 
of  Bishop  Hall’s  admission  re- 
specting the  transmission  of  minis- 
terial authority  without  Episcopal 
ordination,  31 7f;  the  plan  justi- 
fied by  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  319;  its  provision  for  the 
solution  of  the  great  problem  of 
Church  union,  which  is  how  to 
secure  a regular  inter-Church  min- 
istry, 361  f;  objections  to  the  plan, 
a vision,  a dream,  idealism  and 
theoretic,  373 ; importance  at- 
tached by  it  to  Republicanism  jus- 
tified, 458f;  Republicanism  of  the 
plan  supported  by  Lightfoot,  469f ; 
its  Republicanism  endorsed  by  The 
Churchman,  469f. 

Lightfoot,  Bishop,  introduction  in  line 
with  his  essay  on  the  Christian 
Ministry,  5 ; his  essay  on  “ The 
Christian  Ministry,”  84;  identi- 
fies Anglicanism  with  Protestant- 
ism, not  Catholicism,  95 ; his  Chris- 
tian Ministry,  104;  on  heathen 
origin  of  Sacerdotalism,  128;  sup- 
ports the  Republican  doctrine  of 
the  equality  of  non-Episcopal  with 
Episcopal  ministries,  208;  he, 
Hort,  and  McGiffert,  agree  that 
the  Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  Apos- 
tolic Succession  is  without  histor- 
ical foundation,  280;  quotation 
from  in  justification  of  the  Basis 
upon  which  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union  is  rested,  330;  de- 
clares Ignatius  knew  of  no  insti- 
tution of  Bishops  by  Apostles, 
425f;  quoted  against  Bishop  Gore’s 
representation  that  the  Ministry 
does  not  owe  its  origin  to  the 
people,  426f;  the  Apostolate  not 
originally  the  exclusive  source  of 


ministerial  authority,  430f;  asserts 
that  the  Episcopate  was  evoluted 
out  of  the  Presbyterate,  437f;  he 
and  Gwatkin,  regard  the  Christian 
ministry  as  springing  from  the 
Church,  442f;  quotation  from 
touching  the  regularity  and  valid- 
ity of  the  ministrations  of  lay- 
men, 450f. 

Lindsay,  supports  Republican  doctrine 
of  the  equality  of  non-Episcopal 
with  Episcopal  ministries,  208;  af- 
firms that  the  change  from  Pres- 
byterial  to  Episcopal  government 
was  without  Apostolic  authority, 
425f;  asserts  that  the  commissions 
of  the  Lord  were  given  to  the 
Church  as  a whole,  not  to  the 
Apostles  alone,  429f;  his  asser- 
tion to  the  effect  that  the  Apostles 
were  leaders  not  rulers,  owing 
their  place  and  influence  to  def- 
erence not  to  the  appointment  and 
authority  of  Christ,  448f. 

Lord’s  Supper,  Tertullian's  testimony  as 
to  its  administration  by  laymen, 
14f;  dramatized  by  Elders-Bish- 
ops,  1 30 ; Sacerdotal  view  of  the 
celebration  of  it  by  ministers  who 
have  not  received  ordination  by 
Bishops  of  the  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion, 270f;  how  to  get  at  the  core 
of  the  true  doctrine  of,  363. 

)\/l  AN,  personal  relationship  to  God 
restored  by  Jesus,  24f. 

Marriage,  analogy  between  it  and  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
200;  Sacrament  of  marriage  dis- 
proves Sacerdotal  hypothesis  re- 
specting the  supernatural  effects  of 
Sacraments,  355f. 

Matthias,  St.,  election  by  the  120  dis- 
ciples shows  that  the  Church  re- 
garded itself  as  having  the  Lord’s 
authority  to  meet  emergencies  by 
new  institutions,  22f. 

McCrady,  quotation  from  his  Apostolic 
Succession  and  Christian  Unity. 
393f. 


INDEX. 


513 


McGiffert,  supports  Republican  doc- 
trine of  equality  of  non-Episcopal 
with  Episcopal  ministries,  208;  he, 
Lightfoot  and  Hort  agree  that  the 
Sacerdotal  doctrine  of  Apostolic 
Succession  is  without  historical 
foundation,  280. 

Mediator,  Gospel  makes  no  provision 
for  one,  230f. 

Memorial  against  Canon  xix,  its  ref- 
erence of,  to  members  of  Churches 
without  the  Historic  Episcopate 
as  “ so  called  Christians,  ” 270. 

Methodism,  parallelism  between  it  and 
the  primitive  Church,  135. 

Methodist,  it,  Presbyterian,  Baptist  and 
Disciple  Churches,  possibility  of 
their  uniting,  377. 

Milman,  his  assertion  that  the  Church 
was  founded  at  Rome  before  St. 
Paul’s  visit.  I 1 . 

Minister  and  People,  on  essentially  the 
Slime  level,  146. 

Ministers,  New  Testament  ministers 
were  laymen,  132;  responsible  for 
ecclesiastical  divisions,  224f. 

Ministry,  two  theories  respecting  its 
origin  and  authority,  xi;  doctrine 
of,  held  by  the  Congregational 
Churches,  xii ; Sacerdotal  and 
Republican  doctrines  of,  xiii ; in 
the  New  Testament,  Christian 
associations  are  called  Churches 
before  possessing  an  Apostolic 
ministry,  16;  Churches  with  dif- 
ferent ministries,  existed  in  New 
Testament  and  later  times,  18;  a 
development  due  to  experience, 
18;  no  satisfactory  evidence  of 
more  than  two  ministerial  orders 
down  to  the  year  A.  D.,  70,  21  ; 
Matthias  elected  by  the  people  to 
meet  a special  need,  23 ; Congre- 
gationalists,  Presbyterians,  Episco- 
palians and  Papalists  quote  primi- 
tive documents  in  support  of  their 
respective  governments,  thus  prov- 
ing that  there  was  no  uniform 
government  in  the  early  Church, 
35;  Ignatius  the  first  to  speak  of 


three  ministerial  orders.  Bishops, 
Priest  and  Deacons,  41  f;  a 
Common  Inter-Church  Ministry, 
the  hope  for  unity,  88f;  no  essen- 
tial difference  between  Ministers 
and  People,  99;  constituted  of 
only  one  order  not  three  or  more, 
lOOf;  its  representatives,  servants 
not  mediators,  103;  newly  created 
Ministries  as  good  as  old  inherited, 
104;  organic  continuity  not  depend- 
ent upon,  107;  first  representatives 
of  the  Christian  ministry  leaders, 
not  officers,  125;  different  grades 
of,  125;  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  the 
Twelve  the  source  of  ministerial 
authority  in  New  Testament  times, 
129f;  the  Ministries  of  both  Jesus 
and  Wesley  laymen,  140;  sacra- 
mental grace  dependent  upon 
prayer  not  on  the  administrator 
of  the  sacrament,  I45f;  sister  and 
daughter  Churches  will  not  ac- 
knowledge superiority  of  Anglican 
orders,  168;  equality  of  non-Epis- 
copal with  Episcopal,  208;  claim 
of  to  ministerial  superiority  the 
great  obstacle  to  Church  union, 
225;  all  existing  Ministries  regular 
and  all  sectarian,  225;  validity  of 
the  ministrations  of  non-Episcopal 
Ministries  proven  by  references 
to  the  official  acts  of  Jefferson 
Davis,  Oliver  Cromwell  and 
Napoleon  Bonaparte,  227f;  Gos- 
pel makes  no  provision  for  Apos- 
tolic Succession,  230f;  appeal 
for  a Republican  Ministry,  231  f; 
the  Ministry  of  each  Church  regu- 
lar for  it,  241  ; continuity  of 
Church  not  dependent  upon  its 
Ministry,  241  ; faith  not  the  Min- 
istry the  seed  of  the  Church,  243f; 
the  Christian  ministry  one  of  ser- 
vice, 265f;  difference  between  its 
representatives  and  laymen,  273; 
history  of  the  Church  of  Corinth 
shows  that  the  Sacerdotal  doctrine 
of  the  Historic  Episcopate  is  based 
upon  a worthless  tradition,  273f; 


514 


INDEX. 


reply  to  Bishop  Hall’s  charge  on 
the  Apostolic  Ministry,  281  ; Sac- 
erdotal doctrine  of  the  Christian 
ministry  a theory,  294f;  ancient 
Ministries  not  essentially  more  di- 
vine than  the  modern,  314f;  equal- 
ity of  all  Ministries,  ancient,  or 
modern  Episcopal  or  non-Episco- 
pal,  316f;  Bishop  Hall  inconsist- 
ent in  the  admission  that  the  Min- 
istry is  not  a caste,  and  yet  insist- 
ing that  ministerial  character  is 
given  at  ordination,  317;  Bishop 
Hall's  admission  that  the  trans- 
mission of  ministerial  authority  is 
not  limited  to  the  Episcopate,  317; 
Bishop  Hall’s  admission  that  the 
difference  between  Episcopal  and 
non-Episcopal  ordination  is  a 
matter  of  changeable  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  not  of  unchanging 
faith,  318;  representatives  of  the 
Christian  ministry  regarded  origi- 
nally as  officers  in  the  state,  343f; 
necessary  for  the  same  reason  that 
farmers  are  necessary,  353;  valid- 
ity and  efficacy  of  sacraments  de- 
pendent upon  Priesthood  of  their 
recipients  not  of  their  administra- 
tors, 358f;  the  official  ministrations 
of  the  ministries  of  all  Churches 
are  equally  regular  and  valid, 
362;  but  two  orders  in  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  41  Of;  first  Chris- 
tian ministers  were  laymen  without 
ordination,  445f;  commission  to 
teach  and  baptize  given  to  laymen, 
448f;  quotation  from  Bishop 
Lightfoot  touching  the  regularity 
and  validity  of  lay  ministrations, 
450f;  the  assertion  of  Bishop  Gore 
and  Dr.  Stone  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament elders  constituted  a plural 
Episcopate  with  power  to  perpetu- 
ate the  Apostolate  by  ordination, 
refuted,  454f. 

Missionaries,  their  prayers  of,  for  unity, 
75;  a touching  appeal  of  a Mis- 
sionary for  Church  union,  389f. 

Missionary  work,  not  proselyting,  xvi. 


Mission  Field,  possibility  of,  its  divi- 
sion under  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  1 77. 

Missions,  Christian,  dependent  upon 
Protestantism,  236f. 

Milligan,  Prof.,  his  notable  prophecy 
concerning  tbe  necessity  of  unity 
to  the  evangelization  of  the  world, 

75. 

Moberly  and  Gore,  their  works  summa- 
rized and  interpreted,  263f;  grudg- 
ingly admit  validity  of  lay  Bap- 
tism, 270;  acknowledge  the  univer- 
sality of  the  Priesthood,  271  f; 
failure  of  to  establish  the  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  Succession,  399f. 

Modernism,  a Roman  Protestant  move- 
ment, 96;  a new,  comprehensive 
and  efficient  Republican  Prot- 
estantism, 258;  in  the  Roman 
Church,  367f. 

Modernist  Movement,  the,  247. 

Modernists,  Roman,  quotation  from  re- 
specting the  symbolic  character  of 
the  Sacraments,  368f. 

Moeller,  supports  Republican  doctrine 
of  the  equality  of  non-Episcopal 
with  Episcopal  ministries,  208. 

Monasticism,  originally  a form  of  Prot- 
estantism to  which  the  credit  of 
the  missionary  activities  of  the 
Middle  Ages  belongs,  237. 

Morris,  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.,  an  illustration 
showing  Episcopal  jurisdiction  to 
be  limited  to  souls,  246. 

Moses  and  Aaron,  not  founders  of  the 
New  Testament  Jewish  priesthood, 
129. 

Mosheim,  Prof.,  quotation  from  in  jus- 
tification of  the  basis  upon  which 
the  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union 
is  rested,  323f. 

Moule,  Bishop,  declaration  against  the 
doctrine,  no  Church  without  a 
Bishop,  41 3f;  remarks  of,  con- 
cerning the  celebrated  case  of 
Travers  who,  though  only  in  Pres- 
byterian orders,  exercised  his  Min- 
istry in  England,  432f;  assertion 


INDEX. 


515 


of  his  belief  in  a modern  or  Re- 
publican Episcopate,  458f. 
Moulton,  Prof.,  on  schism,  471  f. 

ATIONAL  Churches,  necessary 
^ ' comprehensiveness  of,  79. 
Newman,  John  Henry,  on  schism,  469f. 
Non-Episcopal  Churches,  right  of,  to 
create  their  own  Episcopates,  172; 
under  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  could  create  its  own  Epis- 
copate, 1 86. 

EJECTIONS,  to  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union,  (1)  primary 
reference  to  modern  rather  than  to 
ancient  Churches,  232f;  (2)  makes 
no  distinction  between  " Catholic  ” 
and  Protestant  bodies  of  Chris- 
tians, or  between  Episcopal  and 
non-Episcopal  ministries,  235f: 

(3)  that  the  carrying  out  of  the 
plan  would  involve  a break  in  the 
continuity  of  the  Church,  24)  f; 

(4)  that  the  carrying  out  of  the 
plan  would  involve  the  overlapping 
of  Episcopal  jurisdiction,  l73f; 

(5)  that  the  carrying  out  of  the 
plan  would  involve  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  Christianity,  248f;  (6)  out 
of  line  with  the  conclusions  of  the 
great  Protestant  thinkers,  255f. 

Officialism,  inferiority  of  to  leadership, 

127. 

Ordaining  Committee,  an  important 
part  of  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union,  185. 

Ordinal,  Anglican,  its  declaration  con- 
cerning object  of  Episcopacy,  7 ; 
its  assertion  respecting  three  orders 
in  the  Christian  ministry  rests  upon 
the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  41  f; 
framed  on  the  theory  of  instituting 
to  an  office,  not  of  giving  minis- 
terial character,  120;  doctrine  of 
its  preface  regarding  Episcopal 
ordination,  240;  provides  for  Epis- 
copal ordination,  but  does  not  teach 

/\postolic  Succession,  393f;  its 


preface  does  not  affirm  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  Succession,  41  Of. 

Ordination,  evidence  of  its  administra- 
tion by  Presbyters,  31  ; Presbyte- 
rian validity  of  recognized  by 
English  reformers,  60f;  Apostles, 
not  recorded  as  having  ordained 
successors,  131  f;  origin  of  the  cere- 
monial of  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
143;  effect  of  ordination,  a change 
in  relationship  not  an  infusion  of 
ministerial  character,  146;  causes 
which  led  to  the  Sacerdotal  con- 
ception of,  156;  cannot  convey 
historicity,  186;  originally  the 
elders  of  each  congregation  or- 
dained its  congregational  Bishop, 
215;  Bishop  Hall  wrong  in  admit- 
ting that  ministerial  character  is 
given  at  ordination,  317;  Bishop 
Hall's  remarkable  admission  that 
the  difference  between  Episcopal 
and  non-Episcopal  ordination  is  a 
matter  of  changeable  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  not  of  unchanging  faith, 
318;  doctrine  that  ordination  con- 
veys ministerial  character  because 
of  its  adminstration  by  Bishops, 
not  held  until  towards  the  close  of 
the  fifth  century,  339f;  what  ordi- 
nation does  and  what  it  does  not 
do  for  the  ordinand,  359f;  the 
necessity  of  regularity  one  of  the 
chief  reasons  for  ordination  illus- 
trated by  its  importance  to  the 
marriage  relationship,  361  ; ordi- 
nation to  a Common  Inter-Church 
Ministry,  suggested  forms  for, 
396f;  the  right  to  ordain  not  an 
exclusive  prerogative  of  Bishops, 
412f;  Dr.  Fulton’s  claim  that  it 
has  been  reserved  as  the  exclusive 
right  of  Bishops,  refuted,  419f; 
first  Christian  ministry  probably 
laymen  volunteers  or  Ministers  by 
apostolic  appointment  without  or- 
dination, 445f;  the  assertion  of 
Bishop  Gore  and  Dr.  Stone  that 
the  New  Testament  elders  consti- 
tuted a plural  Episcopate  with 


516 


INDEX. 


power  to  perpetuate  the  Apostolate 
by  ordination,  refuted,  454. 

Origen  and  Tertullian,  among  the  first 
to  call  Christian  ministers  priests, 

157f. 

Oxford  and  Cambridge,  suggestion  of 
colonial  missionary  to  their  au- 
thorities temporarily  met  in  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 
xxii  f. 


DARKHURST,  Dr.  Charles  H., 

^ Presbyterian,  criticism  of  Bishop 
Greer’s  reordination  proposal,  169. 

Pastoral  work,  unsatisfactory  character 
of,  under  sectarian  conditions,  1 79. 

Pastors,  a grade,  not  order  in  Minis- 
try, 125. 

Paul,  St.,  not  the  founder  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  1 1 ; teaches 
unity  by  federation,  87;  ordina- 
tion of,  could  not  have  been  an 
infusion  of  ministerial  character, 
147f;  ordinations  by  him  could 
not  have  infused  ministerial  char- 
acter, 150f;  Bishop  Hall’s  wrong 
use  of  his  comparison  of  the 
Church  with  the  human  body,  317. 

People,  proofs  that  the  Christian 
church  was  organized  by  them  on 
the  lines  of  familiar  institutions, 

29f. 


People  and  Minister,  on  essentially 
the  same  level,  146. 

Perowne,  Bishop,  declaration  against 
the  doctrine,  no  Church  without  a 
Bishop,  413f;  his  remarks  con- 
cerning the  celebrated  case  of 

• Travers  who,  though  only  in  Pres- 
byterian orders,  exercised  his  min- 
istry in  England,  432f. 

Peter,  St.,  attempt  to  trace  the  An- 
glican Episcopal  Succession  to  him, 
xii;  not  the  founder  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  1 1 ; had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  establishment  of  the  Epis- 
copate, 298f. 

Peters,  The  Rev.  Dr.  John  P.,  quota- 
tion from,  commendation  of  The 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union,  262. 


Pharisees,  put  Jesus  to  death  because 
of  His  Republicanism,  231. 

Philippi,  why  Bishops  are  found  here 
instead  of  Presbyters,  29f. 

Philosophy,  Importance  of,  to  Chris- 
tianity, 295. 

Plummer,  quoted  against  Bishop  Gore’s 
representations  that  the  Ministry 
does  not  owe  its  origin  to  the  peo- 
ple, 428f;  asserts  that  the  com- 
missions of  the  Lord  were  given 
to  the  Church  as  a whole,  not  to 
the  Apostles  alone,  428f. 

Polycarp,  his  silence  and  that  of  Ig- 
natius respecting  the  Johannean 
origin  of  the  monarchial  Episco- 
pate, offsets  the  testimony  of 
Clement  and  Tertullian,  38f;  tra- 
dition respecting  his  having  been 
made  a monarchial  Bishop  by  St. 
John,  41  ; tradition  upon  which 
the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion is  based,  405 f. 

Potter,  Bishop  Henry  Codman,  states- 
manship and  catholicity  illustrated 
by  his  cathedral  foundation,  162. 

Prayer,  sacramental  grace  dependent 
upon  it,  not  on  the  ministry,  145f. 

Prayers  and  Sermons,  sacraments 
dramatization  of,  348f. 

Prayer  Book,  its  justification  of  the 
Level  Plan  for  Church  Union, 

319. 

Preaching,  world  to  be  saved  by,  ix; 
impediments  to,  of  sectarianism, 
177f;  unsatisfactory  character  of, 
under  sectarian  conditions,  178f. 

Precedents,  ecclesiastical,  not  to  be 
slavishly  followed,  217. 

Presbyter,  Anglican,  his  answer  to 
Bishop  Hall’s  “ The  Apo.stolic 
Ministry,”  xxii. 

Presbyter,  and  Bishop,  origin  and 
identity  of  the  office,  27 ; why  not 
found  at  Philippi,  Crete  and  Asia 
Minor,  29f;  those  who  took  part 
in  ordinations,  not  Bishops,  31  ; 
validity  of  ordination  by,  recog- 
nized by  English  reformers,  60f; 
those  of  the  New  Testament  not 


INDEX. 


517 


officials,  189;  originally  regarded 
as  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles, 339f;  Presbyters  and  Bishops, 
constitute  but  one  order,  399f: 
Abbe  Duchesne,  admission  of  that 
Presbyters  ordained  Bishops,  455f. 

Presbyterate,  how  it  czime  to  be  sup- 
planted by  the  Episcopate,  28f; 
canons  of  the  primitive  Church 
prove  that  it  was  not  supplanted 
by  the  Episcopate  without  a 
struggle,  32f. 

Presbyterial  and  Diaconal,  officialism 
of,  a development  after  Episcopal 
officialism,  145f. 

Presbyterial  and  Episcopal  succession, 
identically  the  same,  465f. 

Presbyterian,  it,  Methodist,  Baptist  and 
Disciple  Churches,  possibility  of 
their  uniting,  377. 

Presbyterian  and  Episcopalian  Sacer- 
dotalism, points  of  agreement,  97. 

Presbyterian  Churches,  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession,  xii ; recog- 
nized as  true  Churches  by  the 
Apostles,  18f. 

Presidents  of  the  United  States  and 
Bishops  of  the  “ Historic  ” Epis- 
copate have  essentially  the  same 
kind  of  succession,  152;  continuity 
of  the  American  people  not  de- 
pendent upon  their  Presidents  and 
Governors,  242. 

Price,  Dr.,  Methodist,  criticism  of 
Bishop  Greer's  reordination  pro- 
posal, 1 69. 

Priesthood,  Jewish,  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment times,  owed  its  existence  to 
Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  not  to  Moses 
and  Aaron,  129;  Gospel  makes 
no  provision  for  a mediatorial  min- 
istry, 230f;  one  of  service,  other- 
wise worthless,  266;  universality 
of  the  Priesthood  acknowledged 
by  Gore  and  Moberly,  271  f. 

Priestism  and  Imperialism  involve  the 
same  non-Gospel  principle,  208f. 

Priests,  not  they  but  the  Holy  Ghost 
representative  of  God  to  His  peo- 
ple, 99f;  Priest,  not  a New  'Tes- 


tament term  for  Christian  minis- 
try, 101  ; every  man  his  own 
Priest,  103,  358f;  inferiority  of 
Priests  to  prophets,  127;  Chris- 
tian ministers  first  designated  as 
Priests  by  Tertullian  and  Origen, 
157f;  every  head  of  a family  a 
Priest,  229;  prayers  of,  may  as- 
sist no  more  in  making  Sacra- 
ments efficacious  than  those  of  the 
Sexton,  226. 

Primitive  Christians,  impossibility  of 
their  having  held  the  Sacerdotal 
theory  of  the  ministry  and  Sacra- 
ments, 121. 

Principles,  Church,  alternative  views, 

313. 

Priscilla,  a lay  woman  preacher,  140f. 

Prophets,  a grade,  not  order  in  minis- 
try, 125;  superiority  of  to  Priests, 

127. 

Proselyting,  not  missionary  work,  xvi. 

Protestant,  Anglican  Churches,  Prot- 
estant, 95;  Churches,  difference 
between  English  and  Continental, 
1 1 1 f ; Episcopal  Church,  why  the 
logical  leader  in  the  Church  Union 
Movement,  1 92 ; Anglican  Churches 
are  Protestant,  not  “ Catholic,” 
235. 

Protestantism,  disorganization  of,  92f; 
unification  of,  a prerequisite  of  the 
republicanization  of  Romanism, 
234;  Modernism  a new  form  of, 
258. 

Quadrilateral,  chicago- 

Lambeth,  cause  of  its  rejection 
by  the  other  Protestant  Churches, 
3 ; disappointment  of  Episcopalians 
at  its  rejection,  3 ; its  overture ; 
does  it  go  far  enough?  71  ; quoted, 
164f;  a basis  not  a plan  for  union, 
165;  author's  interpretation  of  it 
is  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union,  1 73 ; resemblance  of  its 
provisions  to  those  of  the  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union,  181  ; 
must  fail  or  fall  in  with  Repub- 
licanism, 210;  appeals  to  the 


518 


INDEX. 


Profesfanl  rather  than  the  Roman 
and  Greek  Churches,  232f;  secret 
of  its  failure,  207. 

Quakerism,  constitutes  a Church  as 
truly  as  Romanism,  134. 


D AMSAY,  Prof.,  identifies  An- 

^ ' glican  with  Protestantism,  not 
Catholicism,  95 ; supports  Repub- 
lican doctrine  of  the  equality  of 
non  - Episcopal  with  Episcopal 
ministries,  208;  quotation  from,  in 
justification  of  the  Basis  upon 
which  the  Level  Plan  for  Church 
Union  is  rested,  326;  his  assertion 
that  the  evolution  of  the  Episco- 
pate was  yet  far  from  having 
reached  the  monarchial  stage  when 
I.  St.  Peter  was  written,  328. 

Reciprocal  reordination,  author’s 
change  of  view  respecting  its  ne- 
cessity, 1 84f . 

Reformation,  its  promoters  did  not  at 
first  contemplate  the  abandonment 
of  Episcopacy,  58f;  that  of  Six- 
teenth Century,  impossible  on  sacer- 
dotal theory  of  the  Church,  245. 

Reformers,  historical  critics  successors 

to,  265. 

Reformers,  difference  in  their  views 
concerning  the  institution  of  the 
Episcopate,  60f;  according  to  the 
testimony  of  the  historian,  Hallam, 
and  of  Lord  Bacon,  the  validity 
of  Presbyterial  ordination  was 
recognized  by  them,  60f;  English, 
object  of,  in  continuing  the  Epis- 
copate, practical,  not  doctrinal, 
118. 


Regularity,  the  necessity  of,  one  of 
the  chief  reasons  for  the  Sacra- 
ment of  ordination  illustrated  by 
its  importance  to  the  marriage  re- 
lationship, 361 ; ministerial,  the 
problem  of  Church  union  is  how 
to  secure  a regular  inter-Church 
national  ministry,  361  f. 

Reordination,  the  one-sided  proposi- 
tion a hindrance  to  Christian 
unity,  170;  the  reciprocal  propo- 


sition an  impracticability,  171; 
idea  of  any  reordination  aban- 
doned because  of  its  Sacerdotal- 
ism, 183;  author’s  change  of  view 
respecting  its  necessity,  183f. 

Republican,  Jesus,  the  great,  217. 

Republican  and  Sacerdotal,  theoretical 
character  of  their  doctrines  con- 
cerning the  Christian  ministry, 

296. 

Republicanism,  Republican  and  Sacer- 
dotal doctrines  of  Christian  min- 
istry, xiii;  Gospel  of  Republican- 
ism the  basis  of  Christian  unity, 
82 ; use  of  the  term  justified,  84 ; 
facts  in  favor  of  Republicanism, 
104;  the  essence  of  the  Gospel 
and  therefore  must  triumph  over 
Imperialism  and  Sacerdotalism, 
1 43 ; the  only  basis  for  Church 
union,  173;  its  outlook,  191;  its 
importance  to  Church  union,  192; 
guaranteed  by  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  196f;  taught  by 
Jesus,  231  ; basis  of  all  progressive 
institutions,  23 1 ; Modernism  a 
new,  more  comprehensive  and  ef- 
ficient form  of  Republican  Prot- 
estantism, 258;  canons  of  Hip- 
polytus  and  a Republican  Epis- 
copate, 452f;  the  importance  at- 
tached to  it  in  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  458f. 

Republican  Ministry,  appeal  for,  23 1 f . 

Republican  Protestants  and  Sacerdotal 
Catholics,  arguments  showing  that 
there  is  no  difference  between  them 
that  justifies  existing  divisions, 

389f. 

Roman  Catholicism,  decline  of,  86. 

Roman  Church,  founded  before  the 
visit  of  St.  Peter,  1 1 ; originally  a 
Greek  institution,  1 5 ; without  a 
Latin  head  for  several  generations, 
15;  a continuation  of  Judaism, 
Heathenism  and  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  123f;  its  plan  for  union, 
163f;  its  denial  of  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession to  the  Anglican  Churches, 
202;  union  of  Anglican  Church 


INDEX. 


519 


with,  undesirable,  233;  resem- 
blance of  to  an  iceberg,  233f;  Re- 
publicanization  of,  dependent  upon 
unification  of  Protestantism,  234; 
union  of  Anglican  with,  impos- 
sible. 235  f. 

Romanism,  not  essentially  Sacerdotal, 
105f;  decline  of,  106;  necessity 
of  its  republicanization,  191  ; re- 
publicanized  will  furnish  the  head 
and  body  for  united  Christendom, 
I97f;  neither  it  nor  Denomina- 
tionalism  can  give  the  unity  re- 
quired, 252. 

Row,  on  probable  influence  of  the  syna- 
gogue upon  the  Church's  organiza- 
tion, 27f. 

O ABATIER,  Dean,  supports  Repub- 
lican  doctrine  of  the  equality  of 
non-Episcopal  with  Episcopal  min- 
istries, 208;  quotation  from,  re- 
specting relative  value  of  history 
and  tradition,  306f. 

Sacerdotalism,  its  theory  of  the  origin 
and  authority  of  the  Christian  min- 
istry, xi  f;  doctrine  concerning  the 
Christian  ministry,  xiii;  contrary 
to  the  Gospel,  87;  parties  in  all 
Churches,  95;  no  part  of  the 
Gospel,  95f;  its  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion, 97;  facts  against,  104;  es- 
sentially heathen,  104;  inevitable 
decline  of,  106;  impossibility  of 
its  having  been  held  by  Primitive 
Christians,  121  ; its  foundation 
superstition,  not  Scripture  nor  his- 
tory, 124;  Cyprian  the  founder 
of,  131  ; moral  conception  of  God 
against  it,  1 37 ; its  fatal  mistake, 
l88;  its  outlook,  191  ; its  concep- 
tion of  the  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors as  mediatorial  Priests  will 
not  stand,  202f;  unreality  of  its 
contention,  209;  on  its  theory  of 
the  Church  the  Reformation  would 
have  been  impossible,  245f;  the 
cause  of  division,  the  obstacle  to 
Church  Union,  the  explanation  of 
modern  indifference  to  organic 


Christianity,  263;  origin  of,  263; 
great  champions  of.  Bishops  Gore 
and  Moberly,  263f;  literary  class- 
ics of,  264;  its  claim  that  uni- 
versally received  traditions  are  of 
same  value  as  established  historical 
facts,  293;  theoretical  character 
of  the  Sacerdotal  and  Republican 
doctrines  concerning  the  Christian 
ministry,  296;  Jewish  imported 
from  Babylon,  306f;  that  of  An- 
glicanism a two-edged  sword,  313; 
assertion  of  Prof.  Ramsay  that  the 
evolution  of  the  Episcopate  was 
yet  far  from  having  reached  the 
monarchial  stage  when  1.  St.  Peter 
was  written,  about  A.  D.  64,  328; 
basis  of  its  doctrine  the  assump- 
tion of  an  unnatural  supernatural- 
ness connected  with  the  Sacra- 
ments, 351  f;  the  untenableness  of 
its  sacramental  doctrine  illustrated, 
352f;  it  and  Imperialism,  their 
flourishing  condition  during  the 
Mediaeval  age,  no  evidence  that 
they  are  native  to  Christianity, 
365f;  doctrines  of,  compared  to 
grafts  from  a sour  upon  a sweet 
apple  tree,  366;  "Catholics"  and 
Republican  Protestants,  no  reason 
why  they  should  not  come  together 
into  one  ecclesiastical  organization, 

382f. 

Sacraments,  validity  of,  when  adminis- 
tered by  laymen,  98f;  Sacerdotal, 
not  instituted  by  Jesus,  133;  super- 
natural effect  of,  not  denied,  147; 
efficacy  of,  due  to  the  prayers  of 
the  people,  of  the  sexton  as  much 
as  the  priest,  226 ; Sacerdotal  view 
of  the  ministration  of  them  by 
ministers  who  have  not  received 
ordination  by  Bishops  of  the 
Apostolic  Succession,  270f;  are 
dramatized  sermons,  345f ; grace  of, 
347f;  effects  of,  supernatural,  but 
not  unnaturally  supernatural,  348f ; 
untenable  Sacerdotal  hypothesis  of 
the  benefits  of,  involving  the  idea 
of  the  repetition  through  them  of 


520 


INDEX. 


the  incarnation  and  of  the  Sacri- 
fice on  the  Cross,  350f;  the  un- 
tenableness of  Sacerdotalism  con- 
cerning their  unnatural  super- 
natural effects,  352f;  the  Sacer- 
dotal doctrine  of  the  super- 
natural benefit  of,  disproven  by 
the  Sacrament  of  Marriage,  355  f; 
benefit  of,  a change  of  relation- 
ship, 357 ; validity  and  efficacy 
of,  ultimately  dependent  upon  the 
priesthood  of  its  recipient,  not  upon 
the  minister  by  whom  it  is  cele- 
brated, 358f;  impossibility  of 
union  on  the  basis  of  the  Sacer- 
dotal doctrine  respecting  them, 

365. 

Sadduccees,  put  Jesus  to  death  because 
of  His  Republicanism,  231. 

Sanday,  Canon,  quotation  from,  re- 
specting the  equivalence  of  the 
terms  Presbyter  and  Bishop,  405f; 
declaration  against  the  doctrine,  no 
Church  without  a Bishop,  413f; 
the  Apostolate  not  originally  the 
exclusive  source  of  ministerial  au- 
thority, 432f;  remarks  of,  con- 
cerning the  celebrated  case  of 
Travers  who,  though  only  in 
Presbyterian  orders,  exercised  his 
ministry  in  England,  432f;  his  as- 
sertion to  the  effect  that  the  Apos- 
tles were  leaders,  not  rulers,  owing 
their  place  and  influence  to  defer- 
ence, not  to  the  appointment  and 
authority  of  Christ,  448f. 

Saravia,  remarks  of,  concerning  the 
celebrated  case  of  Travers  who, 
though  only  in  Presbyterian  or- 
ders, exercised  his  ministry  in  Eng- 
land, 432f. 

Schism,  is  to  Church  what  revolution 
is  to  State  and  may  be  quite  justi- 
fiable, 244f;  what  it  is,  471  f. 

Scribes  put  Jesus  to  death  because  of 
His  Republicanism,  231. 

Second  Coming,  doctrine  as  held  by 
early  Christians  inconsistent  with 
Sacerdotalism,  121  f. 

Sectarianism,  overlappings  of,  xv;  in- 


consistency of,  76f;  Sacerdotal- 
ism the  cause  of,  263;  danger  of, 
373 ; decadence  of,  with  the  Laity, 
379;  decadence  of,  with  the 
Clergy,  381  ; showing  its  unjustifi- 
ableness, 382f. 

Sects,  the  Roman  Church  one  of  them, 

239f. 

Sermons  and  Prayers,  Sacraments  are 
dramatizations  of,  348f. 

Servant,  Ministers  servants  not  medi- 
ators, 103. 

Sexton,  prayer  of,  may  assist  in  mak- 
ing Sacraments  efficacious,  as  much 
so  as  those  of  the  Priest,  226. 

Seymour,  Bishop,  his  contention  that 
the  Historic  Episcopate  and  Apos- 
tolic Succession  are  synonymous 
phrases,  396f. 

Short,  Bishop,  remarks  of,  concerning 
the  celebrated  case  of  Travers 
who,  though  only  in  Presbyterian 
orders,  exercised  his  ministry  in 
England,  432f. 

Smith,  W.  R.,  his  assertion  to  the  ef- 
fect that  the  Apostles  were  leaders 
not  rulers,  owing  their  place  and 
influence  to  deference,  not  to  the 
appointment  and  authority  of 

Christ,  448f. 

Smythe,  Dr.  Newman,  the  Level  Plan 
for  Church  Union  not  out  of  line 
with  his,  “ Passing  Protestantism 
and  Coming  Catholicism,  255 ; his 
idea  respecting  reordination,  399f. 

Social  realm,  departments  of,  108. 

State  and  Church,  the  family  the  basis 

of,  355. 

States,  the  Churches  behind  them,  be- 
cause of  their  holding  to  Sacer- 
dotalism while  they  have  aban- 
doned Imperialism,  257. 

Statistics,  showing  that  the  leadership 
in  Church  union  movement  natu- 
rally belongs  to  the  English  speak- 
ing peoples,  194. 

Stone,  Dr.,  and  Bishop  Gore  put  mem- 
bers of  the  Churches  not  having 
the  Historic  Episcopate,  without 
the  covenant,  452f. 


INDEX. 


531 


Sf.  Peter’s  Church,  Rome,  and  the 
pastor  of  the  Winfield  Memorial 
M.  E.  Church,  Little  Rock,  225. 

Sunday  School,  teachers,  lay  preachers, 
141  ; inferiority  of,  under  sectarian 
conditions,  179;  experts,  necessity 

of.  179. 

Supernatural,  in  sacramental  ordinances, 
not  the  unnatural  supernaturalness 
of  Sacerdotal  doctrine,  314;  no 
reason  why  an  unnatural  super- 
naturalness should  be  attributed  to 
the  Sacraments,  361. 

Swallowing,  impossibility  of  Church 
union  by  this  process,  86f ; ab- 
surdity of  hoping  for  unity  as  a 
result  of,  90. 

Synagogue,  model  of  Christian  church, 
a Democratic  lay  institution,  28. 

Syria,  Congregational  Churches  of 
New  Testament  times,  same  as 
Denominational  Churches  of  the 
United  States,  21  If. 


T’’  AFT,  President,  he  and  Bishop 
Tuttle  occupy  essentially  the 
same  basis  as  to  their  ministries, 
99f ; his  succession  to  George 
Washington  disproves  the  Sacer- 
dotal hypothesis  of  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession, 152f;  he  and  Bryan,  their 
relationship  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  illustrative  of  the 
difference  between  ministers  and 
laymen,  273. 

Teachers,  a grade,  not  order  in  min- 
istry, 125. 

Tertullian,  Bingheun's  interpretation  of, 
respecting  the  appointment  by  the 
Apostles  of  Bishops,  open  to  ques- 
tion, 1 1 ; his  doctrine  concerning 
the  founding  of  the  Church  and 
the  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments by  laymen,  14f;  silence  of 
Ignatius  and  Polycarp  offsets  tes- 
timony of  Clement  and  Tertullian 
respecting  the  Johannean  origin  of 
the  monarchial  Episcopate,  35f; 


I testimony  as  to  the  validity  of  the 

I administration  of  Baptism  and  of 

j the  Holy  Communion  by  Laymen, 

j 287 ; objection  of  Bishop  Hall  to 
his  testimony  as  to  the  validity  of 
Baptism  and  the  Holy  Communion 
when  administered  by  laymen  will 
not  stand,  288;  on  lay  ministra- 
tions of  Baptism  and  the  Holy 
Communion,  451  f. 

Tertullian  and  Origen,  among  the  first 
to  call  Christian  ministers.  Priests, 

157f. 

Theologians,  resemblance  to  naturalists 
of  one  hundred  years  ago,  292; 
claims  of  Sacerdotalists  that  uni- 
versally received  traditions  are  of 
same  value  as  established  histor- 
ical facts,  293. 

Theological  education,  advantages  to, 
of  Church  union,  179f. 

Timothy  and  Titus,  their  alleged 
Episcopates,  16f;  ordination  of, 
could  not  have  been  an  infusion 
of  ministerial  character,  147f;  or- 
dination of,  by  Elders  and  St. 
Paul,  420f. 

Titus  and  Timothy,  their  Episcopates, 
16f;  ordination  of,  could  not  have 
been  an  infusion  of  ministerial 
character,  147f. 

Tradition,  respecting  the  institution  of 
the  Episcopate  by  St.  John  not 
supported  by  historical  evidence, 
8;  that  upon  which  the  doctrine 
of  Apostolic  Succession  is  based, 

405f. 

Tradition  and  history,  relative  value 
of,  296;  quotation  from  Dean  Sa- 
batier respecting  relative  value  of, 

306f. 

Travers  and  Whittingham,  exrunples 
cited  by  Anglican  Sacerdotalists 
in  favor  of  their  position,  431  f. 

Tunnel,  poorly  lighted,  not  applicable 
to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  274. 

Tuttle,  Bishop,  he  and  President  Taft 
occupy  essentially  the  same  basis 


622 


INDEX. 


as  to  their  religious  and  civil  min- 
istries, 99f. 

Twentieth  Century,  a Republican  era, 

193. 

Tyrell,  Father,  on  the  overlapping  of 
Episcopal  jurisdiction,  247. 


u 


NITED  Church  for  the  United 
States,  embryonic  incorporation 
of,  to  hold  property  for  common 
use  of  the  Churches,  1 77. 

United  Slates,  Denominational  Churches 
of,  same  as  the  Congregational, 
Syrian  and  Asia  Minor  Churches 
of  the  New  Testament  times,  21  If. 

Unity,  Dean  Robinson  asserts  m 
narchlal  Episcopate  to  be  the  sym- 
bol of  unity,  393f;  chief  barrier 
to,  393f. 


Unity  Church,  Prof.  Milligan's  notable 
prophecy,  75 ; change  of  attitude 
towards,  76;  a mark  of  faithful- 
ness to  Christ,  78;  basis  of,  79; 
Republican  Protestantism  the  only 
possible  basis,  109f;  primitive 
promoters  of,  144;  author’s  vision 
of,  illustrated  by  a Cathedral, 
161  ; advantages  and  benefits  of, 
381  f;  argument,  showing  the  un- 
justifiableness of  division,  382f. 

Unity  Christian,  conciliatory  course 
necessary  to  its  promotion,  5f. 

Utility,  rather  than  age  the  test  of 
superiority,  187f. 


WASHINGTON,  George,  Presi- 
dent Taft’s  succession  to,  dis- 
proves the  Sacerdotal  hypothesis 
of  Apostolic  Succession,  152f. 
Wernle,  Prof.,  supports  Republican 
doctrine  of  the  equality  of  non- 
Episcopal  with  Episcopal  minis- 
tries, 208;  quotation  from,  respect- 
ing the  value  of  philosophy  to 
Christianity,  295;  quotation  from, 
in  justification  of  the  Basis  upon 


which  the  Level  Plsm  for  Church 
Union  is  rested,  332. 

Westcott,  Bishop,  quoted  against 
Bishop  Gore’s  representation  that 
the  Ministry  does  not  owe  its 
origin  to  the  people,  428f;  asserts 
that  the  commissions  of  the  Lord 
were  given  to  the  Church  as  a 
whole  not  to  the  Apostles  alone, 

428f. 

Whately,  Archb.,  admits  that  a Min- 
istry might  be  created  by  laymen, 

440f. 

Whilgift,  Archb.,  declaration  against 
the  doctrine,  no  Church  without  a 
Bishop,  414f. 

Whittingham  and  Travers,  examples 
cited  by  Anglican  Sacerdotalists 
in  favor  of  their  position,  43 1 f . 

Will,  human,  freedom  of,  136. 

Wilmer,  Dr.  C.  B.,  reference  of,  to 
Bishop  Hall’s  admission  that  the 
benefits  of  Sacramental  ordi- 
nances are  of  the  same  character 
as  the  benefits  of  prayer,  35 1 . 

Wilson,  Canon,  in  accord  with  the  Re- 
publicanism of  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union,  473  f;  belief  that 
Articles  xix  and  xxiii  were  ex- 
pressly drawn  up  with  the  idea  of 
including  non-Episcopal  Churches, 
475f;  a call  for  the  reinvestiga- 
tion of  the  evidence  upon  which 
the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion rests,  476f. 

Winfield  Memorial  M.  E.  Church, 
Little  Rock,  imaginary  celebration 
of  the  mass  in,  by  the  Pope,  225. 

Wordsworth,  Bishop,  his  claim  that 
ordination  has  been  reserved  as 
the  exclusive  right  of  Bishops,  re- 
futed, 418f. 


Young  Men’s  Christian  Associa- 
tion, an  evidence  of  the  deca- 
dence of  Sectarianism,  380f. 


AUTHORITIES 


The  following  list  of  publications  is 
given  for  the  convenience  of  those  who 
may  desire,  under  the  leadership  of 
other  guidance,  to  investigate  the  doc- 
trinal and  historical  basis  upon  which 
The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union  is 
founded. 

As  a complete  list  of  this  kind  would 
be  very  long  and,  to  the  average  reader, 
confusing,  only  the  books  which  consti- 
tute the  classics  of  the  libraries  for  and 
against  the  position  taken  in  the  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union  are  given,  and 
these  are  placed,  in  both  cases,  in  the 
order  of  their  importance.  Any  who 
may  wish  to  go  into  the  subject  more 
fully  will  be  helped  in  fixing  upon 
other  works  by  the  references  to  them 
that  will  be  found  in  these  books  and 
in  this  one,  especially  in  its  Lecture  I 
and  Appendix. 

The  books  of  the  list  are  divided  into 
three  classes  with  reference  to  their 
alignment  with  the  Level  Plan  for 
Church  Union;  (1)  those  that  are, 
speaking  broadly,  exactly  in  line  with 
it;  (2)  those  that  are  altogether  out  of 
line  with  it,  and  (3)  those  that  occupy 
an  intermediary  position  with  an  in- 
clination towards  one  or  the  other  of 
the  extremes. 

In  these  classes  the  essays  of  Drs. 
Lightfoot,  Hall  and  Sanday,  entitled, 
respectively,  “ The  Christian  Ministry,” 
" The  Apostolic  Ministry,”  and  “ The 
Conception  of  Priesthood  in  the  Early 
Church  and  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land,” are  given  the  first  places,  not 
only  on  account  of  theii  excellency,  but 
also  because,  while  they  cover  with  a 
comprehensive  and  masterly  sweep  the 


most  important  part  of  the  ground 
' from  the  opposite  sides  and  via  media 
I points  of  view,  they  are  inexpensive 
^ and  easy  accessible.  Mr.  Thomas 
Whittaker,  2 and  3 Bible  House,  New 
York  City,  is  the  publisher  of  Bishop 
Lightfoot’s  essay,  and  those  of  Bishop 
Hall  and  Professor  Sanday  may  be  had 
through  him.  No  one  who  has  not  read 
these  three  essays,  or  their  equivalents, 
should  consider  himself  competent  to 
pass  an  intelligent  opinion  respecting 
the  tenability  of  the  position  taken  in 
The  Level  Plan  for  Church  Union. 

I.  Bool(s  with  which  The  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union  is  in  exact 
alignment:  “The  Christian  Ministry, 
by  the  Rt.  Rev.  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  D.  D., 
Bishop  of  Durham;  “ The  Organiza- 
tion of  the  Christian  Churches,”  by  the 
Rev.  Edwin  Hatch,  M.  A.,  Vice  Prin- 
cipal of  St.  Mary’s  Hall,  Oxford; 
“ Christian  Institutions,”  by  the  Rev.  A. 
V.  G.  Allen,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  Episcopal  Theolog- 
ical School,  Cambridge,  Massachusetts; 
“ Religions  of  Authority,”  by  the  Rev. 
Auguste  Sabatier,  Dean  of  the  Prot- 
estant Faculty  of  Theology  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Paris;  "The  History  of 
Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,”  by 
the  Rev.  Arthur  C.  McGiffert,  D.  D., 
Professor  of  Church  History,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York 
City;  “The  Christian  Ecclesia,”  by 
the  Rev.  Fenton  John  Anthony  Hort, 
D.  D.,  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cam- 
bridge University;  “What  is  Chris- 
tianity? ” by  Dr.  Adolph  Harnack, 
Rector  of  the  University  of  Berlin; 

“ The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,”  in 


524: 


AUTHORITIES. 


two  volumes,  by  Dr.  Wernle,  Professor 
of  Modern  Church  History  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Basel;  “ The  Church  in  the 
Roman  Empire  Before  A.  D.  1 70,” 
by  the  Rev.  W.  M.  Ramsay,  M.  A., 
Professor  of  Humanity  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Aberdeen;  “The  Program  of 
Modernism  and  the  Encyclical  of 
Pius  X,”  Anonymous;  “ History  of  the 
Christian  Church  from  A.  D.  I to 
600,”  by  the  Rev.  Wilhelm  Moeller, 
D.  D.,  Professor  of  Church  History 
in  the  University  of  Kiel ; “ The 

Church,  Past  and  Present,”  edited  by 
the  Rev.  H.  M.  Gwatkin,  D.  D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Cam- 
bridge University;  “Christian  Institu- 
tions,” by  the  Rev.  Arthur  Penrhyn 
Stanley,  D.  D.,  Dean  of  Winchester; 
” Hasting’s  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,” 
and  ” The  Schaff-Hertzog  Encyclo- 
pedia,” Articles  in  both  on  the  Chris- 
tian church,  ministry  and  sacraments; 
” The  Decay  of  the  Church  of  Rome,” 
by  J oseph  McCabe,  formerly  a Roman 
Priest. 

II.  BooJfs  Tuith  Tohich  The  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union  is  out  of 
alignment : ” The  Apostolic  Ministry,  " 
by  the  Rt.  Rev.  A.  C.  A.  Hall,  D.  D., 
Bishop  of  Vermont;  ” The  Church 
and  the  Ministry,”  and  ” Orders  and 
Unity,”  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Charles  Gore, 


D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Birmingham;  “Min- 
isterial Priesthood,”  by  the  Rev.  R.  C. 
Moberly,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesi- 
astical History  in  the  University  of 
Oxford;  ” The  Church  of  the  Apos- 
tles,” by  the  Rev.  Lonsdale  Ragg, 
B.D. ; “Bingham’s  Christian  Antiqui- 
ties,” and  “ Blunt’s  Dictionary  of  Doc- 
trinal and  Historical  Theology,”  articles 
in  both  cases  on  the  Christian  church, 
ministry  and  sacraments. 

III.  BooI(s  ivith  Tvhich  The  Level 
Plan  for  Church  Union  is  neither  alto- 
gether in  nor  out  of  alignment,  but 
Tvhich  should  not  be  passed  over  by 
anyone  Jvho  desires  to  mal^e  a thorough 
study  of  the  problem  created  by  the 
divisions  of  Christians:  “The  Con- 
ception of  Priesthood  in  the  Early 
Church  and  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land,” by  the  Rev.  Professor  W. 
Sanday,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.;  “The  Minis- 
try of  Grace,”  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  John 
Wordsworth,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Salis- 
bury; “Passing  Protestantism  and 
Coming  Catholicism,”  by  the  Rev. 
Newman  Smythe,  D.  D.;  “Church 
Unity,  Studies  in  its  Most  Important 
Problems,”  by  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Theo- 
logical Encyclopedia  and  Symbolics, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City. 


’4 


r 


I' 


i 

f 


• V 


‘•V 


: ' 


V' 


1. 


T 

■i . 


1 


A 


• -k  ,'■ 


^ - . 

V 


DATE  DUE 


Demco,  Inc.  38-293 


